House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Business before Questions
Church Commissioners
The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
To ask the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire, representing the Church Commissioners, what assessment the Commissioners have made of the potential effect on the Church of England of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s decision to take a sabbatical in May 2021. (912869)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
While he is carrying out academic study and writing a book, the Archbishop will delegate some of his duties to the Archbishop of York and other bishops. Study leave is available to all clergy and bishops, and the Archbishop’s two immediate predecessors also both took study leave.
Chris Loder
I thank my hon. Friend very much for his answer. It is a concern of many members of the frontline clergy, in the light of press reports, that there will be a reduction in the number of clergy in the Church of England. Given that the Archbishop is going on sabbatical and there is considerable concern about that, will my hon. Friend just outline how the Church of England will protect frontline clergy in the event of any review of Church structure?
Andrew Selous
My hon. Friend will be reassured that the Archbishop of York told the General Synod on Saturday that the Church needs more priests, not fewer, and a parish system revitalised for mission to tell even more people about the good news of Jesus, building on the amazing work that the Church has done to meet those in need during the pandemic.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am now suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.
Sitting suspended.
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
The Government share my hon. Friend’s ambition to improve safety and access for horse riders. Our 25-year environment plan and landscapes review explain how we will help to connect people with nature. Our new environmental land management schemes will include payments to ensure that those goods are delivered.
Mr Robertson [V]
The Minister will be aware that as more and more building takes place in villages, more traffic is put on the road, which presents a danger to horse riders. Just last year alone, 46 horses were killed and 130 riders were injured. One way in which more access could be provided is by allowing horse riders to use footpaths, for example, and there are many other ideas. Will she work with me and others who are concerned about this issue to try to improve access to bridleways for horse riders?
Victoria Prentis
I would be delighted to do that. I have first-hand experience of negotiating bridleways over motorway bridges and level crossings with two small daughters on their ponies, and I very much appreciate that one of the benefits of improving the bridleway network will be increased safety. The schemes we are introducing will incentivise farmers to enhance public access across the piece.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
Under the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement, the UK has secured tariff-free access for fisheries products and a substantial transfer of quota from the European Union, benefiting fishing communities across the UK, including Scotland. The transfer is equivalent to 25% of the value of the EU’s historic catch in UK waters, worth £146 million delivered over five years. All fisheries Administrations will have regulatory control, giving Scotland powers over the largest part of the UK’s exclusive economic zone.
Wendy Chamberlain
At the beginning of the year, the Secretary of State stood at the Dispatch Box and told Members that difficulties with the UK-EU fishing trade were just “teething problems”, but two months on those problems are still ongoing, and the Government’s compensation fund is clearly insufficient. On Tuesday, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee was told that in the medium term, we will see a lot more of the smaller companies stopping trade in Europe, and it may ultimately be their demise. That is terrible news for the East Neuk in North East Fife and their fishing fleet. Does the Secretary of State still agree with the words that he wrote in 2016, when he said:
“From the point of view of the fishing industry, the case for leaving the EU is overwhelming”?
George Eustice
Yes, I do still believe that, and we have a 25% uplift in quota as a result of the trade and co-operation agreement and regulatory freedom that we did not have before. It is worth noting that we are now seeing lorry loads of fish clearing border control posts in France typically in under an hour—sometimes a little longer, but it is an improving situation. Volumes of trade are back up to around 85% of normal volumes.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) [V]
The Prime Minister said a week ago that he thought the fishing industry could be saved if we only ate more British fish. Two months ago, the Leader of the House said that the fish are “happier” because of Brexit. In January, the DEFRA Secretary said the collapse of exports was a “teething problem”. Can the flippancy end now, and can we get some serious answers for the industry? Some Scottish businesses still face three-day waits to get their fresh fish to EU markets. Does the Government not accept that they have got it wrong and that the taskforces and other sticking plasters are not enough? Will they get back to the negotiating table with the EU, eat some humble pie and accept whatever regulatory alignment and other measures are necessary to save the industry?
George Eustice
As I said, volumes of fish exports are currently running at about 85% of normal volumes. Given coronavirus and the lockdown in the EU, we think that is probably about the right level, given the stress to the markets in the European Union. It is an improving situation. Well over half of all consignments now clear border control posts within an hour, and typically in 45 minutes. Over 90% are clearing them within three hours, so we do not recognise the figure that the hon. Lady gives of three days.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr Speaker! Goodness gracious me, I am so sorry. Gosh! Apologies.
Biodiversity definitely matters, and it is critical that we act now internationally and at home in this crucial year for nature and biodiversity. In England, our Environment Bill sets out a strong legal foundation for improving the environment, and we have introduced substantial new funding for nature, including the nature for climate and green recovery challenge funds. We have protected 40% of English waters across 178 marine protected areas, and we have committed to protecting 30% of our land by 2030.
Theresa Villiers
Will the Government ensure that nature-friendly farming is at the heart of our replacement for the common agricultural policy, and will securing a global switch to sustainable and nature-friendly farming be a core goal for us at COP26?
Rebecca Pow
I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has given me the chance to say that we on the Front Bench—every single one of the Ministers and the Secretary of State—are absolutely committed to nature-friendly farming, and there will be schemes through the new environmental land management system that will reward it. The sustainable farming incentive will support approaches to farm husbandry that will help the environment. That might include propagating integrated pest management and actions to improve soil health and water quality. Local nature recovery will pay for actions that support local nature recovery and deliver local environmental priorities, with farmers potentially collaborating. Finally, landscape recovery will support much wider landscape-scale and ecosystem recovery through long-term change of land use and projects. Internationally, that work continues with our Darwin initiative and many more things, and we will bring all those into COP26.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
Now that we have left the European Union, we have the opportunity to do things better. We will innovate and improve our environmental and agricultural standards, enabling us to identify where we can deliver better environmental outcomes more effectively and in ways that better align with our regulatory systems.
George Eustice
Apologies, Mr Speaker. Work to establish the Office for Environmental Protection continues at pace. We have appointed the chair and interim CEO, with non-executive directors to follow, and the headquarters will be in Worcester.
Mary Robinson [V]
Lockdown has highlighted the importance of our environment, with the positive effects of good air quality, access to green spaces and connecting with nature for our health and wellbeing. Will the Secretary of State elaborate on the remit of the new independent regulator and on what the interim Office for Environmental Protection will be able to do to maintain those important protections, as we seek to enhance and protect our natural environment?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The interim OEP will be able to produce an independent assessment of the Government’s progress towards their 25-year environment plan and receive complaints about failures of public authorities to comply with environmental law. It will take decisions on operational matters such as recruitment, accommodation and facilities; develop the OEP strategy, including its enforcement policy; and determine approaches to how the OEP will form and operate.
Chris Clarkson
May I associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson)? I am a fellow Greater Manchester MP, and my constituents in Heywood and Middleton also put a very high premium on our natural environment, especially as we are in a city region. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to implement the measures in the Environment Bill ahead of Royal Assent?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Although the timetable for the Environment Bill has slipped by a few months, we are working at pace to implement the policies and measures behind it. We have announced Dame Glenys Stacey as the chair of the OEP and Worcester as its HQ, and it will launch on an interim basis in July. We are also progressing work on developing targets. We have already published a policy paper and set up working groups, and we are developing proposals for a consultation. We will launch further consultations on a raft of measures to be brought forward under the Environment Bill, including relating to packaging and waste collection reforms.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) [V]
Now that we are no longer a member of the European Union, it is vital that all steps are taken to ensure that the UK has the strongest possible protections for our environment. That is why so many of us are confused that the Tories weakened their own Environment Bill in Committee by voting down cross-party amendments that would have strengthened the OEP and made the Bill fit for purpose. Can the Secretary of State finally confirm that, when the Environment Bill eventually comes back to the House, he will support all steps to make the OEP—which was promised to Bristol and the south-west but is now headed for Worcester—fit for purpose and fit for the 21st century?
George Eustice
I believe it is fit for purpose. We have set up an independent Office for Environmental Protection that has powers to investigate. It will have powers to bring a judicial review, and powers to investigate and follow up on any complaints that the law has been broken. Crucially, as well, it has been given some work to develop those targets, and also to comment on progress towards both the targets and our environmental plan.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
We published a consultation on amendments to the Flood Re scheme on 1 February 2021 on DEFRA’s consultation hub. We drew public attention to this through a press notice to the media, which received positive coverage. In addition, the consultation has been communicated to a range of stakeholders, including members of the property flood resilience roundtable. The consultation will close on 26 April 2021, and I would encourage all interested parties to engage in it.
Alex Davies-Jones
We have just passed the one-year anniversary of the devastating flooding that hit my community of Pontypridd in February 2020. Sadly, far too many people are still unable to get affordable home insurance, and it is clear that there are serious problems with the Flood Re scheme in its current form. Will the Minister, as part of this consultation, please agree to meet me and some of the residents affected in my community to hear at first hand about the problems with Flood Re?
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Lady for that, and of course, as ever, I have huge sympathy with anyone who has suffered flooding; it is not a nice experience. But Flood Re is doing everything it can to ensure that people can get flood insurance. It was introduced in 2016, and since then 96% of those with prior flood claims were able to get five or more insurance quotes. So this is really moving, but we are doing the consultation because if tweaks need to be made, we will make them. We very much look forward to hearing views. Do input to the consultation—
Rebecca Pow
I am very happy to meet anybody who wants to make suggestions of how the whole system could work more effectively.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Too many people in flood risk areas cannot afford and do not have adequate insurance. Flood Re strongly supports flood cover being a standard part of household insurance, as recommended by the Blanc review. Can the Minister confirm what steps her Department is taking to ensure that this recommendation is implemented, and by when?
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for that. It is very important that those who might be susceptible to flooding can get hold of the right insurance. We are doing a great deal of work on this. She refers to the independent review of flood insurance. It was actually a special review taken around the Doncaster area to look at the lessons learned there. It has reported with its recommendations, and the Government are looking at that with a view to taking on board suggestions that may be helpful in this space.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
We are already conducting some checks on live animals, with full documentary checks and physical checks being conducted at the premises of destination. We plan to introduce some documentary checks on products of animal origin next month and then begin some physical checks from July onwards, and also to introduce similar checks on plant products later this year. Recruitment of staff by the port health authorities is at an advanced stage.
Neil Parish [V]
On Tuesday, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee heard from a series of our fish and meat exporters to the EU who are struggling with the paperwork system imposed by the EU and its border officials. One exporter in Brixham needed over 70 pages of paperwork for one consignment of fish. When we start making checks this summer, we could insist on 140 pages of paperwork for EU imports, if we wanted to. However, could we, in our mutual interest, negotiate with the EU a digital system to make it easier for our businesses both to export and to import?
George Eustice
Unlike the European Union, we have taken a pragmatic approach to phasing in border controls, so that we can protect business supply chains and UK consumers, but when we do start to introduce those export health certificates, they will be certificates that are of a similar form to those of the European Union, since they are derived from retained EU law. I understand the point my hon. Friend is making, but we should also remain conscious that the primary focus of these checks is to protect food standards and animal health. Over time, the European Union may diverge from British law or may suffer variable enforcement between member states, and the UK needs the ability to protect British consumers and to operate food safety surveillance of other EU member states.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
In July 2020 we published a long-term statement setting out our
“ambition to create a nation more resilient to future flood and coastal erosion risk”,
and it contained five key policies and over 40 actions to better protect and prepare the country. We are investing £5.2 billion to build 2,000 new flood defences over the next six years; this is a serious commitment and it will better protect 336,000 properties.
Brendan Clarke-Smith [V]
I thank the Minister for her response and also for meeting me and the Environment Agency in January to discuss various issues surrounding flooding in Bassetlaw. Can the Minister update us on the progress of the proposed £6.5 million scheme in West Stockwith with local stakeholders?
Rebecca Pow
I was very pleased to meet my hon. Friend and the EA to discuss this issue. He is a great campaigner for his local community. The West Stockwith pumping station evacuates flood water into the Trent at times of flood; elements of the station are at the end of their design life, and the Environment Agency is working with its partners to consider competing water demands in the area to develop an outline business case to replace these. There is a £5.5 million grant-in-aid indicative allocation in the capital programme for 2020-21 to 2023-24 for this work, and, crucially, the work will protect around 68 homes.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
Puppy smuggling is abhorrent. We operate a rigorous pet-checking regime and work collaboratively to share intelligence, disrupt illegal imports and seize non-compliant animals. Officials liaise closely with devolved Administration colleagues, and they meet fortnightly to discuss developments, although of course often they speak in between these formal meetings as well.
Richard Thomson [V]
I thank the Minister for that response. Puppy smuggling is a trade carried out outside current regulations and it causes considerable distress and suffering. Does the Minister agree with charities such as the Dogs Trust that we need tougher penalties right across the UK for those caught smuggling puppies, in order to ensure that there is a real deterrent in place to tackle this horrific trade?
Victoria Prentis
DEFRA is considering a range of possible measures, which may result in legislative change. We are listening to a group of stakeholders, including the Dogs Trust, and the recommendations that they and the EFRA Committee made relatively recently will inform our policy making in this important area.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
This month will see the completion of the Government’s six-year £2.6 billion investment programme to deliver over 1,000 flood schemes, better protecting 300,000 homes from flooding. Starting in April, the Government will invest £5.2 billion in a six-year investment programme to deliver 2,000 flood schemes, protecting 336,000 properties from flooding. Alongside this programme, a further £170 million will be invested to accelerate work on 22 shovel-ready projects for defence schemes, and construction on these will begin from March 2022.
Mark Garnier [V]
I thank the Minister for that response and also for meeting me and the Environment Agency yesterday. As she knows, Bewdley in my constituency has suffered from two once-in-100-year floods in the last 18 months alone. While the western bank of the River Severn is protected by impressive demountable flood barriers, the eastern bank, known as Beales Corner, has been protected just by temporary barriers and by property-level resilience, and this year the temporary barriers collapsed catastrophically and the property-level resilience all but failed. The Minister is very familiar with Bewdley, having kindly visited last year during the flooding, and she knows that the Environment Agency is working up plans to provide a permanent solution to floods at Beales Corner, but can she promise me that she will work with me, the Environment Agency and the residents of Beales Corner to deliver on the pledge made by the Prime Minister when he visited Bewdley last year that we will finally “get Bewdley done”?
Rebecca Pow
As my hon. Friend knows, I was very sorry to hear of the flooding of the 19 properties at Beales Corner on 22 January, when the temporary flood defences failed. He kept well in touch with me on that at the time, and we have since met, as he said, which I was pleased, and always am pleased, to do. I give him an assurance that the Environment Agency is working really hard with the local authority and partners—and indeed with him—to develop the business case for a permanent flood scheme at Beales Corner. He knows that I take a very close interest, from a ministerial perspective, in this and all areas relating to it, including just working out how it will be possible and the funding options. I urge him to keep up the good work that he is doing in Bewdley.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
Since 2018, we have been working with farmers to build up ideas and gain their insights. So far, more than 3,000 farmers have helped us to develop aspects of our new approach through 72 tests and trials. Our co-design approach includes the sustainable farming incentive pilot, which will open for expressions of interest shortly. We will also be working with farmers on various consultations and on policies, in particular to address the causes of poor profitability.
Miriam Cates [V]
Last year, I visited a dairy farm near Penistone in my constituency that is using new technologies to increase efficiency and improve yields. That is a great example of innovation in farming that can lead to a bright future for the dairy industry. Can my right hon. Friend tell me how his Department is supporting farmers to remove barriers to adopting new technologies that they need so that they can become more competitive?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Dairy businesses such as the one she refers to in her constituency are embracing technology and innovation, and we want to support them to go further. Over the last three years, we have provided around £75 million to farmers to help them purchase new and innovative technology. From autumn this year, the new farming investment fund will help farmers, including those in the dairy sector, to build on the progress already made by offering them grants. We will also be launching a new approach, with research and development syndicates to support individual farm businesses with research and development of technology.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
Water companies are committed over the next five years to a £1.1 billion programme to improve the monitoring and management of sewage discharges. However, I have made it clear to water companies that more action is needed. That is why we have established the storm overflows taskforce, which has agreed to set a long-term goal to eliminate harm from storm overflows and is working on plans to start progress towards that goal.
Feryal Clark [V]
The River Lea, which runs through my constituency, is well used for water sports by many clubs and schools, and it is much loved. Sadly, it is also one of the most polluted waterways in the UK; in 2019 alone, Thames Water spent over 1,100 hours discharging raw sewage into the River Lea. When will the Government finally hold water companies to account to protect our waterways properly?
Rebecca Pow
The hon. Lady raises a very serious issue, and indeed the Department is taking it very seriously. In fairness, as I said, water companies already spend £1.1 billion to improve their monitoring and discharging, but we have set up the taskforce to hold their feet to the fire to come up with some measures for how we can set this long-term goal of getting rid of these sewage outlets once and for all. They will be doing more real-time data checking, so we will have the relevant data that we need soon, and they will be installing more monitoring devices, but the taskforce will report back in the spring on further actions that we may be able to work on.
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
I regularly have discussions with Cabinet colleagues on this issue, in particular through the Cabinet Sub-Committee dealing with EU exit. Import controls on fish products are being introduced in stages. Imports of most fish products have required illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing documentation since January. That includes a catch certificate. We plan to introduce documentary checks for export health on imported fish from April and some physical checks from July.
Sir Gary Streeter [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend for all the efforts he is making to iron out the wrinkles in the export of fish products from the UK. However, if these problems persist, why do we not serve notice on our friends in the EU that with immediate effect we intend to treat the import of fish products from EU countries in precisely the same way that our fish exports to EU countries, especially France, are currently being treated—regulatory equivalence? Would that not help to bring people to the table to resolve the current disruption being suffered by our fishing industry?
George Eustice
As I said to the Chair of the Select Committee earlier, when we start to introduce those checks they will indeed be equivalent and similar to the types of checks that the European Union is currently requiring on our own fish exports. At that point, I hope there will be an opportunity for some discussion about how we can each ensure that we have the right safeguards for our respective markets in a way that is more user-friendly and more pragmatic. There are countries in the world that have better and more developed systems for doing this documentation than the European Union.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
When it comes to pesticides policy, the Government apply the precautionary principle. Emergency authorisations are an integral part of the precautionary principle, because they allow restrictions on a precautionary basis for certain products while allowing their use where there is a risk that cannot be controlled by any other means. At the beginning of the year, applying that principle, the Government granted an emergency authorisation for the use of thiamethoxam on sugar beet. Sugar beet is a non-flowering crop and we applied a strict condition, which is that the pest pressure should be assessed over the winter months and that the product should only be used if it were deemed necessary and the pest pressure passed a certain threshold. I can tell the House that earlier this week that analysis was published. The threshold was not met due to some of the cold weather we have had. Therefore, the terms of the emergency authorisation are not met and the neonicotinoid in question will not be used this year.
Paul Maynard [V]
The fishing and fish processing industry continues to be affected by the closure of hospitality nationwide and the impact of border friction arising from Brexit, which has also weakened sales in key Asian markets such as Korea. Will the Secretary of State volunteer his Fisheries Ministers to meet further with me and affected employees? Can he also confirm that the replacement for the European fisheries fund will also benefit the fish processing sector, as well as the fishermen themselves?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. My ministerial colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), was nodding to give her assent to a meeting. Indeed, I would also be more than happy to meet fish processors in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I can confirm that the new £100 million fund to develop the fishing industry and infrastructure will be open to fish processors. In addition, those fish processors who have had issues during January, due to the new administrative processes, in exporting to the European Union, are eligible for the fisheries disruption fund and many have already applied.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Fishing boats are tied up and fish exporters are tied up with red tape. Fishing was promised a sea of opportunity, but the reality is that many fishing businesses are on the verge of collapse. Much of the so-called extra fish may not even exist or be able to be caught by British boats. The fishing industry feels betrayed. Is it not now time for the Secretary of State to apologise to the fishing industry for the Brexit deal that his Government negotiated?
George Eustice
I have made it clear all along that the Government had hoped to get closer to a zonal attachment sharing arrangement in that first multi-annual agreement, but the EU has been required to forfeit 25% of the fish that it has historically caught in our waters—a significant uplift—as the price for continued access. That additional fishing quota is worth £140 million.
Luke Pollard
The pollock quota has gone down in the south-west. There is no apology and no sense of reality from the Secretary of State. He cannot wriggle out on this one—the net is closing in on him. The reality is that fishing has lost trust and confidence in the actions of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. For all the broken promises, fishing businesses have closed and others will follow. Why will the Secretary of State not apologise? What will he do to fix the mess that this incompetent Government have created for fishing communities nationwide?
George Eustice
As I said, we have seen, through the trade and co-operation agreement, a significant increase in quotas—25%, worth some £146 million. As we have left the single market and the customs union, there are some new administrative processes in place. That was challenging for the fishing sector during January, which is why we opened a fund to support it. Looking to the long term, however, we have regained control of regulations in our waters, which enables us to do conservation measures on places such as the Dogger Bank that were never possible as an EU country. It has also enabled us to ban pulse trawling in our waters. These are all things that could not be done while we were shackled to the common fisheries policy.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
My right hon. Friend is right that the EU has chosen to introduce new import controls on GB livestock, including that they must enter through a border control post. Border control posts will be designed to take account of animal welfare need. The border control post at Calais for equines is one such post. We are working very hard with the European Commission to ensure that any disruption to traffic, especially across the short straits, does not lead to welfare issues. I would be grateful if she could get in touch with me directly with any specific examples and I will take them up.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) [V]
George Eustice
I do not accept that. Obviously, the Chancellor has made an announcement in relation to extending the universal credit uplift to help the financially vulnerable through the current situation. We also announced new rounds of funding late last year to support charities such as FareShare in food redistribution and to support other food charities to help those in need.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con) [V]
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes a good point. All rural areas need good digital connectivity, including his constituency. The Government have delivered superfast broadband to more than 5 million premises, with 96% of UK premises now able to access superfast speeds. We are investing an unprecedented £5 billion to support deployment of gigabit broadband in the hardest-to-reach areas of the country.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]
George Eustice
I or one of my ministerial colleagues would be more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and others to discuss this. I completely agree with him that deep peat in particular can be an important store of carbon. That is why we have recently announced new restrictions on burning on blanket bog. Restoration of the hydrology of some of those deep peats is a fundamental part of our approach to tackling climate change.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
Victoria Prentis
My hon. Friend and I have discussed the current completely unacceptable situation many times, particularly in respect of Offshore Shellfish in Brixham. There is no justification for the European Commission to ban our molluscs from class B waters, and we are seeking an urgent resolution of this dispute. We are willing to provide additional reassurances, but we ask the Commission to recognise the existing high standards and long history of trade between us. I am happy to meet the business as my hon. Friend suggests.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
George Eustice
I clearly do not share the hon. Gentleman’s caricature of the situation. This Government are the first in the world to make it clear that 30% of our international climate finance will go on nature-based solutions. In answer to his question, what we hope to get out of COP26 are ambitious targets around the world to continue to tackle carbon emissions, but also, crucially, a big recognition of the role of nature in tackling climate change.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
The Archbishops’ Council of the Church of England has administered £10 million of the Government’s culture recovery funding to 68 churches and cathedrals and about £250,000 in conservation grants. The £300 million additional funding announced yesterday is very welcome, as is the fact that the levelling-up fund specifically includes churches and cathedrals. The national Church does not routinely fund capital works, but it does liaise closely with a wide network of funders who provide support for parish churches and cathedrals.
Munira Wilson [V]
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his answer. St Michael’s church in Fulwell was closed and in a semi-derelict state when a new church was planted there in 2014. Since then, the committed team have been holding Sunday services and serving their community with no formal heating or lighting. In order to restore this listed building to achieve their vision of being community centred, they have raised over £1.5 million, but they need a further £230,000 to make the church functional. What support might the Church Commissioners be able to offer to help plug that gap for St Michael’s?
Andrew Selous
I am delighted to learn about the growing congregation and all the good work happening at St Michael’s Fulwell. The commissioners provide strategic development funding to the Church nationally in order to support major change projects that will make a significant difference to mission and financial strength across dioceses. In addition to the culture recovery fund, the National Lottery Heritage Fund has recently launched a new set of funding priorities to support covid-19 recovery and is open to applications now.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne)
The House of Commons Commission has ensured that the House Service has implemented the working safely during coronavirus guidance and is a covid-secure workplace. Measures in place are continuously reviewed to ensure they are in line with any changes in Government guidance. This is further supplemented through the expert advice received from Public Health England and the parliamentary safety team. The Commission receives regular updates from the Chair of the House Service covid-19 planning group.
Patrick Grady
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place. He has the big shoes of my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) to fill.
We all thank those in the House service for the amazing job they are doing in keeping us safe during the pandemic. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as we return to a new normal the last thing we need is a big bang moment where one day all these practices are in place and the next day everybody is crowded back into the Lobbies, the canteens and the Chamber? Does he agree that that kind of approach might not instil confidence across the community on the estate, and that the best option would be to adapt gradually and continue to act in line with the best advice from Public Health England?
Sir Charles Walker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The House services have done a fantastic job in keeping the show on the road, and the Commission congratulates them on that. The Commission also recognises that many members of the House service, many colleagues and the staff of colleagues want to return to the House of Commons, their place of work, and look forward to doing so. However, the Commission also recognises that this needs to be done in as safe a way as possible, as outlined in the road map published by the Government. So the Commission will be working closely, as is always the case, with the trade unions and the representative bodies in this place to make sure that the return to work is a safe one.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
The Church Commissioners have been working through the process of registering their land holdings with the Land Registry, which can be searched publicly. In addition, on page 81 of the Commissioners’ annual report there is a list of the 20 largest real estate holdings.
Kerry McCarthy [V]
When I met the Commissioners, I was told that they did not have comprehensive digital maps of their lands that they could publish. However, a recent report from the Archbishop of Canterbury recommended that the Church map all of its land holdings by using the Good Steward Mapping Tool. I note that its website features digital maps of the Church Commissioners’ lands. In the interests of transparency, will the Commissioner make those maps public?
Andrew Selous
As part of the work of the Archbishop’s housing commission, the Church has indeed commissioned a draft map of the land holdings of the Commissioners, dioceses and parishes, to improve planning and joined-up working between all parts of the Church. This is work in progress, which is currently being trialled by a number of dioceses.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Christian Matheson (City of Chester)
Third party campaigners are a vital part of a healthy democracy and play a significant role in providing voters with information, but it is important that their spending and funding are transparent. The Electoral Commission continues to support the introduction of imprint requirements for digital campaign material and changes that would strengthen its ability to access information quickly about who has placed campaign material online. These changes would help provide transparency for voters and ensure that third party campaigners and others complied with the political finance laws established by Parliament--.
John McDonnell [V]
May I ask my hon. Friend to convey to the Electoral Commission, on behalf of a number of us in the House, the need for an urgent, more serious and in-depth inquiry into third party campaigning, particularly in respect of its role in the last general election? Will he refer the Electoral Commission to the report by openDemocracy that exposed groups such as Capitalist Worker and Campaign Against Corbynism, and the roles of Thomas Borwick, the deputy chairman of the Cities of London and Westminster Conservative Association, and Jennifer Powers, a former Conservative intern, who spent large sums on a social media advertising campaign smearing my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) without declaring the source of their funds? This warrants a full inquiry and reform.
Christian Matheson
The Commission is aware of occasions and allegations in the past where people who might not have been expected to have a certain amount of resource were suddenly able to spend that resource. It assures me that it monitors the activity of non-party campaigners and where there is evidence that the law has not been followed, it will consider the matter, in line with its enforcement policy. I assure my right hon. Friend that I will pass on that message to the Commission.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
The Church of England has regular meetings with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office about countries where people are persecuted for their faith or belief, so that our Government can raise these vital issues with the Governments of the countries concerned. The Church also engages with our heads of mission, civil society groups and, where possible, with the foreign Governments in question.
Rob Butler [V]
Congregants at one of Aylesbury’s churches are deeply concerned about Christian charities in India being forbidden from receiving funds from overseas, amid reports of persecution based on faith. Such organisations often help some of the most vulnerable people in Indian society, so will my hon. Friend tell me what steps the Church of England is taking to help Christian charities and to stop faith-based persecution, both in India and elsewhere?
Andrew Selous
The Church of North India and the Church of South India seek to comply with Indian law in this respect. Pressure from outside India may make the situation worse for those who receive funds. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office should make the Indian Government aware of the impact of such restrictions on Indian citizens. In the past, I have visited the Indian high commissioner in London with a cross-party group of MPs, all of us friends of India, to successfully raise a similar issue; my hon. Friend might like to consider such a visit.
Fiona Bruce [V]
Some 83% of the world’s population live in countries where freedom of religion or belief is not adequately respected. This freedom is essential for societies to secure democratic freedoms, economic development and peace, yet many people, including young people, are unaware of its importance. What is the Church of England doing to help to educate young people about the importance of freedom of religion or belief for all?
Andrew Selous
It is a great pleasure to reply to my hon. Friend, the Prime Minister’s new envoy for freedom of religion or belief. The Church of England strongly supports educating young people to advocate for freedom of religion or belief for everyone globally. We are working with schools in the Gambia and, indeed, in Pakistan and Bangladesh to do exactly that, to help young people be advocates for freedom of religion or belief in their schools, families and communities.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
Christian Matheson (City of Chester)
The focus of the Commission’s work is on voter registration, to ensure that all eligible people are able to vote should they choose to do so. Its research has consistently shown that eligible citizens from ethnic minority backgrounds are less likely to be registered. In delivering its voter registration campaigns, it therefore targets the work towards under-registered groups, including people from black, Asian and minority backgrounds. The Commission uses advertising, media coverage and partnership work in the delivery of such campaigns.
Mr Sharma [V]
I thank my hon. Friend for that response. How important is the Electoral Commission in preventing malign influence on elections in this country and ensuring that volunteers and ideas lead the debate, not online trolls and fake news?
Christian Matheson
My hon. Friend raises an essential point. The Commission has been doing work to get online imprints to make sure that people who put fake news and trolling online can be identified, and that any such adverts have to be registered so that the individuals who post them can be identified and, if necessary, held to account. This is a major issue that affects people from BAME backgrounds and all voters, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise it. I shall pass his concerns on to the Commission.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) [V]
The restoration and renewal sponsor body plans a range of opportunities for right hon. and hon. Members to contribute. Consultation is planned on design options that are now in development, to help to inform further work. The Sponsor Body will continue to provide regular updates to colleagues and welcomes the opportunity to hear views. Of course, I am available at any time to hear and convey points, questions and issues from colleagues from all parties.
Antony Higginbotham
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. We all want to see Parliament restored to a good state of repair, but my constituents and I have concerns about the significant costs that have been spoken of. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that before any major costs are incurred or the project proceeds too far, much more time will be allocated for debate and discussion, including contributions from Members elected in more recent general elections who were not present for the debates on the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019?
Damian Hinds
I thank my hon. Friend for that very important point. Although the scheduling of House business is somewhat beyond my own domain, clearly debate about the future of our national Parliament is incredibly important, and the debate last year, as he will remember, was oversubscribed. Many newer colleagues have also taken up one-to-one briefings, and 63 MPs made submissions to the strategic review call for evidence. Importantly, it is in the legislation that there must be a vote of this House for the main gate business case decision to be made.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
Christian Matheson (City of Chester)
The Commission recently submitted evidence to the Joint Committee on the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, setting out the background to the current minimum timetable of 25 working days for UK elections and the administrative and regulatory implications if the timetable were to be shortened. While the specific period is for Parliament to decide, the Commission emphasises that sufficient time must be allowed for campaigners to put their arguments to the electorate, for voters to decide how to cast their vote, and for returning officers to deliver the election process.
Aaron Bell [V]
I thank the hon. Member for his answer. As he says, this point has been exercising the Joint Committee on the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, on which I and many other Members of this House sit. Election periods have grown considerably longer over the years, which is not necessarily in the best interests of our constituents and democracy more widely, especially when an election is called to resolve an impasse. Will he be willing to inquire further from the Electoral Commission as to what the shortest potential statutory period that could reasonably adopted is, and then write to me or the Committee?
Christian Matheson
I will indeed inquire about that. Informally, the suggestion to me has been that the Commission does not particularly want it shortened too much further because of all the administrative burdens and the administrative marker points that electoral registration officers and others would have to go through, but I will pass on the hon. Gentleman’s request and ask the Commission to write to him.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
Christian Matheson
The Commission supports electoral registration reform, as it would make it easier for people to register or to update their details throughout the year. This might include adding people automatically from other datasets or other automated solutions that still require confirmatory action by the voter. In 2019, when the Commission investigated the feasibility of such reforms, it found that these were possible from a technical perspective and could be implemented without radically altering the structure of the electoral registration system in the UK. The Commission’s view is that that could help to improve registration levels among some under-represented registered groups, including the youngest part of the franchise. This would ensure that as many people as possible were able to participate in our democracy.
Ms Rimmer [V]
I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. The Capitol insurrection in Washington, fraudulent elections in Belarus and the military coup in Myanmar provide three very recent and very real reminders of the importance of defending democracy. Does my hon. Friend agree that democracy is sacred, and what better way to protect it than to automatically ensure that everyone is able to take part in the process?
Christian Matheson
The Commission absolutely sees its primary role as ensuring the smooth delivery of the democratic processes fairly and responsibly across the whole of the UK. It has looked at ways of improving registration and looked at evidence that has previously been given, but ensuring that as many people as possible are able to register to vote and deliver that vote is one of its primary concerns.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) [V]
The restoration and renewal programme has engaged regularly with neighbours and will continue to do so, especially at those moments with most opportunity for meaningful input. To date, it has included group sessions as well as meetings and briefings, including with Westminster City Council. Engagement with local businesses and residents—my hon. Friend’s constituents—will continue, particularly ahead of the submission of planning applications.
Nickie Aiken
Is the Sponsor Body aware that, as well as the restoration and renewal programme, work on the UK holocaust memorial and learning centre will, subject to planning permission, be taking place in Victoria Tower Gardens from 2022 for at least three years? Can the Sponsor Body give assurances that it will seek to ensure that there is minimum disruption to public access to the park from the combined and sequential effects of these two projects on this much loved local park?
Damian Hinds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. Yes, the Sponsor Body is aware of the exceptionally important initiative that she mentions. As plans develop, the R and R programme will, of course, liaise closely with the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre, the royal parks and others locally to carefully understand the impact of the different projects on the park, and how those impacts can be mitigated.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
While he is carrying out academic study and writing a book, the Archbishop will delegate some of his duties to the Archbishop of York and other bishops. Study leave is available to all clergy and bishops, and the Archbishop’s two immediate predecessors also both took study leave.
Chris Loder
I thank my hon. Friend very much for his answer. It is a concern of many members of the frontline clergy, in the light of press reports, that there will be a reduction in the number of clergy in the Church of England. Given that the Archbishop is going on sabbatical and there is considerable concern about that, will my hon. Friend just outline how the Church of England will protect frontline clergy in the event of any review of Church structure?
Andrew Selous
My hon. Friend will be reassured that the Archbishop of York told the General Synod on Saturday that the Church needs more priests, not fewer, and a parish system revitalised for mission to tell even more people about the good news of Jesus, building on the amazing work that the Church has done to meet those in need during the pandemic.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am now suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.
Business of the House
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
The business for the week commencing 8 March will include:
Monday 8 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.
Tuesday 9 March—Conclusion of the Budget debate.
Wednesday 10 March—Estimates day (3rd allotted day). There will be debates on estimates relating to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Cabinet Office. At 7 pm, the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
Thursday 11 March—Proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) (No. 2) Bill, followed by consideration of a business of the House motion, followed by all stages of the Contingencies Fund (No.2) Bill, followed by a general debate on International Women’s Day. The subject for this debate was recommended by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 12 March—Private Members’ Bills.
Valerie Vaz
I thank the Leader for the business for next week. I am pleased that, according to the Order Paper, Westminster Hall will be returning on Monday and that the private Members’ Bills are back. Lots of hon. Members have worked really hard to get a consensus on these Bills; I hope they will have a smooth transition.
Our thoughts are with our gracious sovereign and we wish Prince Philip a speedy recovery.
The Secretary of State for International Trade—I thank the Leader for the letter to her—wrote to me in September to say that she would report to Parliament on the Trade and Agriculture Commission. Actually, a written statement has been published—I thought she would have been here in person. In that written statement, she is extending the terms of reference of the commission. She says she wants to put the
“Commission onto a statutory footing and evolving its role to boost scrutiny of new free trade deals.”
I thought it was Parliament’s job to scrutinise trade deals, so I ask the Leader to ensure that she comes to the House. I know she is top of the poll on Conservative Home—how do we get the Leader up that greasy pole? But she needs to come to Parliament. Disregard for Parliament is absolutely outrageous.
So, too, was the trailing of the whole of the Budget; apart from the fact that there was £700 million for cultural activities instead of £400 million, everything else was in the media over the weekend. Mr Speaker, you will know that in 1947—(Interruption.) Not you personally! We all know from our history that Hugh Dalton had to resign when he leaked the Budget.
We have had the worst death toll in Europe, the worst economic crisis, so why is the Chancellor hurting families in the middle of a pandemic and hurting businesses? There is going to be a rise in council tax—in Walsall, an extra £105—a pay freeze for all our millions of key workers; nothing for schools, nothing for maintained nurseries, nothing for our NHS staff, nothing for the police and nothing for the public sector. How soon they forget who supported them in the pandemic—and still there are excluded people.
There was no mention of the child trust funds. HMRC said £1.8 million—it is pounds or young people—have been forgotten. The money is unclaimed. Parents of children with disabilities have had to go to court to try to release that money. That was a Labour Government initiative. The children are now 18. They need to have access to that money immediately, particularly in the light of the pandemic.
In the middle of this pandemic, we have a reorganisation of the NHS. The Government are embarking on yet another reorganisation—fiddling while Rome burns, a massive restructure, so everything is going back to the Secretary of State. It is a power grab. What are we going to see—VIP lounges, VIP fast tracks? And we have had a takeover—in less than 10 minutes, 52 GPs in London were taken over by a United States insurance company. That is absolutely outrageous. While our NHS staff are turning over people in the covid crisis in our A&Es and vaccinating the nation, the very foundations of our NHS have been taken away from them. So can we have an urgent statement from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on that reorganisation?
Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) had an Adjournment debate and a ten-minute rule Bill and she asked the Government to announce the results of their review on how the benefits system is treating terminally ill people. That was first announced in 2019, but there is no date. Time is running out. The Motor Neurone Disease Association and Marie Curie estimate that 6,000 people have died waiting for their benefits. The Leader will have seen the report from the coroner last week on Philippa Day. There were 28 errors. She took a fatal overdose while her payments were cut. They found a letter rejecting her request for an at-home benefits assessment near her. We need an urgent statement from the Department for Work and Pensions on its treatment of vulnerable and terminally ill people.
I know that the Foreign Secretary updated the House, and he said he had met the family of Nazanin and had spoken to the families of all three detained British-Iranian dual nationals, but we have had no more news. Nazanin’s sentence runs out on Sunday, and there is no update on whether Anousheh can speak to his family again—Sherry, Elika and Arian. I pay tribute to Daren Nair, who has had to step down from Amnesty. He has been tireless in his efforts in campaigning. I met him when Richard Ratcliffe was on hunger strike outside the Iranian embassy. We need a further update.
Monday is International Women’s Day and we have the debate on Thursday. It is also Women’s HERstory Month, when we will look back at the history of covid. I pay tribute to the women scientists now: Professor Sarah Gilbert, who designed the Oxford vaccine and led the first trial of the Ebola vaccine, Professor Catherine Green, Professor Teresa Lambe, Professor Katie Ewer and Dr Maheshi Ramasamy. They have all been part of that vaccine.
Finally, on World Book Day, we would like to see tweets of the Leader in his six different outfits as he celebrates it with each of his children.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I begin by joining the right hon. Lady in sending the House’s best wishes to the Duke of Edinburgh while he is in hospital recovering from his operation, and hope that he is restored to full health.
On World Book Day, my children are apparently dressed up today. I think one is dressed as Sherlock Holmes, one is a character from the “Jill and the pony” books, two are dressing up as James Bond, and the third and youngest are dressing up as Harry Potter and wandering round with a wand casting spells on one and all. So World Book Day is being celebrated. Even better, I will be re-showing my podcast of my reading from “Erskine May”, because can you think of anything more joyful to do on World Book Day, or anything more designed to help one enter into happy slumbers, than listening to my somnolent tones reciting from that great work?
To come to the important questions that the right hon. Lady asked, the Foreign Secretary has updated the House on Nazanin. The Government take very seriously the issues of dual nationals held overseas. It is something that I take up with the Foreign Office every week after business questions. The Foreign Secretary is actually going to be here later today with a statement, so there will be the opportunity to ensure that he is reminded of it, if not formally on the Floor of the House, at least in the corridors. But Her Majesty’s Government take it very seriously and have been working on it for a long time.
As regards my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for International Trade, a written statement is a perfectly proper way of updating the House. There is a constant pressure on time in this House; we will no doubt hear later from the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee about how his time sometimes gets squeezed. We simply have to try to ensure that time is used effectively in Opposition days, Back-Bench days, legislation and Budget days, and written statements are a proper way of updating the House.
With regard to the Budget appearing in newspapers beforehand, the main details of the Budget were released to the House yesterday, as is entirely proper, as were the Red Book and the report from the Office for Budget Responsibility. There were general discussions beforehand when things were raised in broad terms, but I do not think that breaks the spirit or the letter of the ministerial code, or indeed of “Erskine May”—although of course as Leader of the House it is my responsibility to remind Ministers that important announcements should be made to the House first.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Mr Speaker—heckling from the Chair I always take as a great compliment.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The right hon. Lady talked about pay increases. It is worth bearing in mind that the majority of public sector workers will receive pay increases. The lowest paid will all get a £250 pay increase, and NHS staff will also get a pay increase, so those who have done the most and who are the least well-off will benefit, even as we try to claw back the huge amount of debt that has been built up in dealing with the pandemic. Some £407 billion of support has been given to the UK economy, spread across the whole of the United Kingdom. I think there is a weakness in the Labour party’s argument—it can only slightly carp at the edges—because the scale of the support is so great that there is no opposition to it.
The NHS reorganisation is a fundamentally important thing to do. We have been through a pandemic and people will have noticed that there are things that could be done better. When something happens, it is human nature to think what we would do better if we were to do it again, and to have a reform Bill—the White Paper has already been issued—is an exceptionally sensible thing to do. It will build on the success of the NHS over the past year in the face of a huge challenge, in which, it is worth bearing in mind, there has been a huge private sector contribution. The right hon. Lady carps about some private sector activity, but the vaccination has been done with and through the help of the private sector. The pharmaceutical industry, which is a profit-making industry, is the thing that has meant that we are leading the world and delivering the vaccine to the British people.
Finally, on the issue of end-of-life benefits, the right hon. Lady raises a point that is extremely complex. That is why the Department for Work and Pensions is continuing to look at it. I have raised it with the DWP recently, in response to questions in the Chamber. There are no easy answers. Everyone wants to ensure that people are looked after at the end of life, but it is not always clear exactly how long people will live for. Again, that is part of the human condition.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
One of the issues that blights so many of us is potholes. In my constituency, that includes roads such as Talbot Drive, Mill Hill Lane, Stockbridge Road and Burnham Gate, but I am very pleased that Conservative-controlled Lancashire County Council has made tackling them a key priority. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way in which we can tackle potholes across Lancashire is by supporting our excellent Conservative candidates in the local elections in May?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the issue of potholes. Apparently there is a fantastic new machine from JCB—a remarkable, successful British company—that fills potholes remarkably quickly. I am particularly pleased to hear how good, sound Conservative councils are fixing roads up and down the country. The people of Lancashire clearly made the right choice in the 2017 local elections. They are good at making the right choice for who to represent them.
Mr Speaker
I think the hon. Member for Burnley (Antony Higginbotham) should have asked for a debate as well, at the end of his question.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Well, in a manner of speaking, we are having one now, are we not, Mr Speaker, about the enormous success of Conservative councils? That is something to which I always like to devote as much time as possible in this House. We want more pothole-free areas under more Conservative councils after the first Thursday in May.
Mr Speaker
Well, after that let us go the Scottish National party spokesperson, Owen Thompson.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP) [V]
Thank you, Mr Speaker. My extended transition to the role of my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) continues. I again make the plea to the Leader of the House to use everything within his gift to encourage some common sense and free the Perthshire One.
Last week the Leader of the House told me:
“We have in this country one of the most honest public sectors of any country in the world.”—[Official Report, 25 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 1096.]
I am sure, therefore, that he will be very concerned at the news that the international community does not seem to be convinced. The Government have been put under review by the Open Government Partnership, a global coalition for transparency and anti-corruption. Will the Government now ensure that time is set aside to debate and demonstrate that criticisms of secrecy over contracts and accusations of cronyism are being taken seriously and not swept under the carpet, to give the public confidence in the Government and remove any suspicion of corruption? Of course, a simple first step would be to back my Ministerial Interests (Emergency Powers) Bill—I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is well aware of that.
I am slightly surprised that we only have one week’s future business, when we have had the luxury of two weeks’ notice or sometimes even more previously. I also hoped that we would have notice of an Opposition day debate for the Scottish National party. Could the Leader of the House update us on when that might be possible and when we might see future dates for Friday sittings for private Members’ Bills?
Finally, I would like to add my comments on World Book Day. I am sure the Leader of the House will agree that books can transform lives, improve our children’s attainment and boost wellbeing. Projects such as Dolly Parton’s Imagination Library, which has worked with the Scottish Book Trust to provide a free book every month to looked-after and adopted children to the age of five right across Scotland, are an amazing way that we can continue to do this.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I agree with the hon. Gentleman on World Book Day. I always like reading P. G. Wodehouse, which may not surprise the House. There is a wonderful new Wodehouse by Ben Schott called “The Leap of Faith”, and if anybody is looking for something to cheer them up as the lockdown draws slowly to its close, I recommend that. It is perhaps more adult reading than the things the children may be attempting to read, including stories by Roald Dahl such as “The Twits”, “Fantastic Mr Fox” and “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory”—all the old favourites that one can safely recommend.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The answer, I am sorry to say, is no.
As regards an Opposition day for the SNP, I will, of course, take that up; I am aware of the Standing Order requirements. In terms of the plea to free the Perth and North Perthshire One, the Government do not have a majority on the Scottish Affairs Committee, so I suggest that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) works with all members of the Committee, so that it may come to an agreement to change the times.
Finally, I admire the hon. Gentleman’s gall in asking for a debate on honesty in public affairs—dare I say, motes and beams, and there is rather a beam in the Scottish Parliament at the moment.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) [V]
My constituent David Lansley has invested in a regeneration project, the Paradise Golf and Beach Resort in Morocco, which was promoted by the Government there back in 2007, but 14 years later, construction has yet to commence, despite multiple conversations with the British consular in Rabat. The investment of my constituent and many others is still nowhere to be seen. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office should intervene in this matter? Can we have a debate about the role of the FCDO in supporting British investors who have seemingly been defrauded by state-backed projects overseas?
Mr Rees-Mogg
While the British Government are unable to intervene in individual cases, we raise property disputes with the relevant Moroccan authorities to urge a satisfactory resolution for British investors. We first raised these issues in 2013 and continue to do so regularly at official and ministerial level, although, as Members will be aware, the response to covid-19 has been HMG’s priority this year and last. Morocco has reassured us that it is keen to ensure that investors are treated fairly and to help to find a solution. We encourage UK citizens in a property dispute to seek legal advice by engaging an independent lawyer qualified in local law, who will be best placed to advise on their rights and methods of redress. Although the British embassy is unable to intervene on behalf of those investors involved in property disputes, we will continue to encourage the Moroccan authorities to make progress on this issue.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business, including the Backbench debate on International Women’s Day 2021 next Thursday. We were hoping to have a second debate on Thursday 11 March on Commonwealth Day 2021, which is also celebrated on 8 March, but the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger), whose application it was, has agreed in behind-the-scenes negotiations this morning to move that debate to Westminster Hall on Tuesday 16 March, if we can secure the agreement of Madam Deputy Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and Means, to facilitate it.
May I pay tribute to my director of public health, Alice Wiseman, who has become a bit of a TV star in the north-east of England? I also pay tribute to all our excellent public health, NHS and council staff in Gateshead, who continue to exceed all expectations to shepherd us through this crisis—but goodness, do they need a pay rise.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the points he has raised. The early business set down for next Thursday is highly uncontentious and should not take a great deal of the House’s time. However, it is for the Backbench Business Committee to schedule the time that is available, but I note that the Commonwealth Day debate has been moved to Westminster Hall, so I hope that ensures that these important issues are raised effectively.
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman wants to congratulate Alice Wiseman, the director of public health in his area. The commitment of public servants over the last year has been absolutely terrific; we are so lucky in this country to have people who have ensured that, in very difficult circumstances, the best has been done for the whole nation.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]
May we have an urgent statement on antisemitism at Bristol university? Jewish students have demonstrated at the Bristol university campus about the alleged actions of Professor David Miller; he has allegedly described Zionism as “the enemy” and referred to the Union of Jewish Students as an “Israel lobby group” which makes Arab and Muslim students unsafe. It is also alleged that he criticised Jewish students for manufacturing a
“charade of false anti-Semitism allegations”.
The university management cares nothing, sees nothing and does nothing about this; they appear to regard Jewish students as an inconvenience and a nuisance, and refuse to take serious action. Jewish students are clearly not welcome; they do not feel safe or valued at this university, and, sadly, history teaches us where this ends. I have written to the vice-chancellor of Bristol university this week and urge my right hon. Friend to ask the Minister for Universities to intervene.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon Friend raises a deeply concerning issue. There is absolutely no place for antisemitism, and it is appalling to hear that Jewish students have reported antisemitism at Bristol university. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) raised this matter with me last week and I have passed it on to the Secretary of State for Education and the Minister for Universities. We expect higher education providers to be at the forefront of tackling antisemitism, making sure that higher education is a genuinely fulfilling and welcoming experience for everyone. Providers ought to have robust policies and procedures in place to comply with the law to investigate and swiftly address hate crime, including any antisemitic incidents reported. I say to my right hon. Friend that, in light of the history of the last century, it seems to me that, of all prejudices, antisemitism is the most wicked; it has no place in our society, and universities must be part of ensuring that antisemitism ceases to exist.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab) [V]
The post office is a lifeline in many communities, and that has particularly been the case during the pandemic. I was concerned to learn that the Post Office has paused capital spend for any businesses wishing to take over their local branches, putting post offices in some communities at risk. So may we have a debate, or a statement from the Government on what plans they might have to ensure that the Post Office builds back better and remains a vital service in our communities as we come through these most difficult times?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely valid point about post offices during the pandemic, and I think of the West Harptree post office as a case in point. It has provided a wonderful centre for the community: it has kept going; it has remained open, continuing to provide a service, and sometimes the post office is the only local shop that has been open in the community. This is very important, and it is very important that we support post offices. I will raise the issue that the hon. Gentleman mentioned about the pause in capital spend and try to get a fuller answer.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con) [V]
The levelling-up fund prospectus was published yesterday, and Stoke-on-Trent has been identified as in the highest priority for funding. Will my right hon. Friend agree to a debate about the fund to ensure that the communities I represent in Longton, Fenton, Meir and Blurton get the investment they deserve?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The £4.8 billion levelling-up fund will spend taxpayers’ money on infrastructure that improves everyday life across the United Kingdom, including regenerating town centres and high streets, upgrading local transport, and investing in culture and heritage assets. The fund will operate UK-wide, extending the benefits of funding for priority local infrastructure across all regions and nations. Thanks to the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, Her Majesty’s Government once again has the ability fully to support all areas of the United Kingdom. The fund will be allocated competitively, prioritising bids from places in highest need. The prospectus published yesterday provides guidance for local areas on how to submit bids for the first round of funding for projects starting in 2021-22. Capacity funding will also be allocated to the local authorities measured in highest need in England and to all local authorities in Scotland and Wales, to build a new relationship with Her Majesty’s Government. That will support the relevant local authorities to develop bids and to ensure that spending is targeted where it is needed the most.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) [V]
Forty-five town deals, 40 represented by Tory MPs; announcements of investment in Teesside, Hartlepool and Middlesbrough, but nothing for areas in the northern part of our region such as South Shields—it is no coincidence that we have important elections coming up. Yesterday’s Budget was not a recovery for everyone, just for those who happen to have a Tory MP or a Tory Mayor. May we please have an urgent debate on this Government’s shameful engagement in pork barrel politics?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I mean, really! The reason the money has been allocated where it has is that that is where it is needed. It is worth bearing in mind that a lot of the areas have socialist councils, and it is socialist councils that have let down their areas, which is why they need the money and why these seats are now Tory. A lot of them were socialist not so long ago; they voted Tory because they were failed by the Labour party. It is a fair process, a proper process, an honest process, and it is making up for the failures of the hon. Lady’s party.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
May we have a debate on how we can loosen up opening times, as well as other measures, for businesses such as restaurants, pubs, shops and the like, so as to help them maximise their income as well as satisfy the inevitable surge in demand as the pandemic crisis lessens?
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend on becoming my right hon. Friend, which I think creates pleasure across the whole House? I am looking forward to that being formalised at the next Privy Council.
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government have convened a small working group of retailers and local authorities to examine how best to reopen these sectors, so it is being co-ordinated with the business community. Small shops have no limits on their hours, and large shops have no limits on their hours Monday to Saturday.
With regard to restaurants and pubs, there is always a sensitivity about local communities if hours are extended, but indeed it is important that when businesses are back, they are able to operate to re-earn some of the money that they have lost. They will be supported by new restart grants, providing up to £6,000 for non-essential retail premises, and we will continue to provide eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties in England with 100% business rates relief from 1 April 2021 to 30 June 2021, and with 66% rates relief from 1 July to 31 March. Things are being done to help them, and opening hours will be a matter for local decision making.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
At the weekend, the Leader of the House kindly proffered some advice to Unionists as to how, in four years’ time, they might get rid of the Northern Ireland protocol. He knows, of course, that in those four years the EU will impose new laws on Northern Ireland, that the Northern Ireland Assembly will have no ability to decide whether or not to implement them, and that, if they do not implement them, the UK Government will be taken to the European Court of Justice.
While we welcome the actions taken by the Government yesterday—we trust that they will not deviate from the short-term measures that they have taken to protect Northern Ireland from the protocol—really, the answer is a long-term solution. I know that the Leader of the House is a fan of P. G. Wodehouse, but we do not need a Jeeves to sort this issue out; there are alternatives that the Government already know and that have been put forward to them. May we have a debate in Government time to discuss those alternatives as a means of replacing the damaging Northern Ireland protocol?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I cannot promise the right hon. Gentleman a debate in Government time, but the issue is unquestionably a serious one, and he will note, as indeed he did in his question, that my noble Friend Lord Frost is taking serious action on this matter. He is extending the implementation period of the protocol by six months to try to ensure the smooth flow of goods between one part of the United Kingdom and another. That is the fundamental point: Northern Ireland is as much a part of the United Kingdom as Somerset and even, Mr Speaker, as Lancashire, and we should recognise that in everything that we do, say and legislate for in this House.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
It is World Book Day, as has been mentioned, and I wear my World Book Day badge with pride. It was sad not to see children walking to school this morning dressed as their favourite characters, but I am sure many are at home today, as my right hon. Friend’s children are, enjoying their favourite books. Some 15 million schoolchildren will still receive World Book Day book tokens, which they can spend in a bookshop or on special World Book Day books. Will my right hon. Friend join me in celebrating the joy of reading? Will he share with us his favourite book—perhaps not penned by himself?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I think “Leave It to Psmith” is one of the classic P. G. Wodehouse books. Psmith himself is such a wonderful and engaging character, and I would recommend that book to anybody. Anyone who has not read any P. G. Wodehouse, should start with “Leave It to Psmith” or go for “Psmith in the City”, which is also a great work. If only I wore a monocle, I might be dressing up as Psmith himself.
I so agree with my hon. Friend that reading is one of life’s great joys. Indeed, it has been a small consolation during the pandemic that there has been more time to read because of the inability to carry out normal social activities, and I am sure that has given many people comfort during a difficult period. Children learning to read, beginning to read and beginning to have that pleasure and enthusiasm for words is something that one sees evolve in one’s own children as they develop, and it is greatly to be encouraged with all children across the country.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) [V]
The Leader of the House will be aware that the Education Secretary recently instructed the Office for Students to cut the London weighting from teaching grants awarded to London universities, as part of Conservative plans to level down London. Given the disproportionate impact that that will have on disadvantaged and ethnic minority students in particular, many of whom commute across the city to attend universities such as St Mary’s in Twickenham, will the Leader of the House grant time for a debate on this discriminatory policy, which is yet another attack by the Conservatives on our capital city?
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I agree with the hon. Lady about what a wonderful university St Mary’s in Twickenham is? It is a very impressive institution. The reforms that have been asked for from the Office for Students will ensure that more of taxpayers’ money is spent on supporting higher education provision, which aligns with national priorities. London universities will be able to benefit from the significant uplifts that the Government are making to elements of the grant, including the first real-terms increase in per capita funding for strategically important high-cost subjects, as well as being able to bid for capital investment to support the delivery of strategic subjects. The London weighting accounts for a small proportion of London providers’ income—less than 1% of the estimated total for the 2020-21 academic year. As with all reforms, it is subject to consultation, which the Office for Students will publish shortly. The impact of any changes on providers will be carefully considered, but I would say to the hon. Lady that the policy is to level up the country; it is not a question of doing anything that is the reverse of that. We want every part of the country to be as prosperous as our great bustling metropolis.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con) [V]
Last week, I launched the all-party parliamentary group for one-punch assaults, and I put on record my thanks to all colleagues who took part in that initial meeting to get the group constituted. I launched the group following the experience of my family after the death of my father, but I have been really moved over recent days by the number of people who have reached out to me sharing their own experiences, including Maxine Thompson-Curl, Sandra Munday, Kevin Woodburn, Heidi Cox and Yvonne Henchcliffe, who have all lost loved ones to these horrific assaults. Can we make time in the agenda to get a debate in Government time to discuss the impacts of one-punch assaults and how best the criminal justice system can be reformed to ensure that all victims, or the families of victims, feel fully supported by the system?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I commend my hon. Friend for the work that she has done campaigning on this matter, which I know is very close to her heart and is obviously one of great sensitivity that the Government take very seriously. The sort of assaults that she is describing are senseless, evil acts of violence, which the Government are committed to eradicating, and we are taking steps to do so, including by more efficiently applying the criminal justice system, and with more than 6,000 new police officers already recruited from last year, which is a major step to ensuring that the law is enforced. I will of course raise her specific points with the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, and the Backbench Business Committee may be a very good port of call for a debate in support of all the people she has got to join her all-party group.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]
Hull is the country’s fourth most deprived council area, but for some reason it is not in the 100 priority areas for the community renewal fund, which is supposedly based on social and economic factors. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) has just highlighted, a disproportionate 40 of the 45 towns and cities receiving the £1 billion through the new towns deal have Conservative MPs. It seems that with three Labour MPs, Hull is excluded from even being considered. I am sure that the Leader of the House will want to avoid the impression of pork barrel politics and the sleaze that led to his party’s downfall in the 1990s, so can we please have a debate about the criteria for the allocation of these funds to maximise transparency?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I was going to say that I refer the right hon. Lady to the answer that I gave some moments ago, but let me just go back to what I said. The reason we need this fund is because of the failings of socialism—socialist councils and socialist MPs, letting down their constituents—and this Government are putting things right. They are levelling up, and many of the areas that are receiving the money still have socialist councils but, in their wisdom, they elected Conservative MPs to get over decades of socialist mismanagement. That is why the areas in most need now have Conservative MPs. Let us hope that Hull has Conservative MPs, too, and then it will be managed better.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
Mr Speaker,
“Have you ever been in the House of Commons and taken a good square look at the inmates?”—
so wrote P. G. Wodehouse, to continue today’s theme. He was less than complimentary about some of the characters, but quite what he would have made of the virtual Parliament is anybody’s guess. Bearing in mind those inmates, will the Leader of the House provide us with an update on when we will be released from this captivity?
Mr Rees-Mogg
If we are going to swap P. G. Wodehouse quotes, a glorious one comes to mind: “The Right Hon.” Gentleman
“was a tubby little chap who looked like he had been poured into his clothes and had forgotten to say ‘When.’”
That has always been one of my favourites—[Interruption.] No, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) is my hon. Friend, so it is perfectly safe, and I said the right hon. Gentleman anyway, so any connoisseur of procedure—as my hon. Friend is—would know that I was not referring to him.
We need to get back to normal. We need to get back to the Chamber being full and bustling and Ministers being held to account. Debates with full interventions are much better than debates that are a series of monologues read out that pay no attention to what has been said beforehand, with people just filling the airwaves for three minutes. We want to get back to being a proper Chamber and I hope that we can do so in line with the general road map.
Mr Speaker
I would just add, to reassure the House, that on the agenda for Monday at the Commission is the road map to take us forward.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Local Government cuts, housing targets and a deregulated planning regime have meant that a lot of councils have had no option but to surrender municipal land for luxury flats. Can we have an urgent debate and Government statement on the “Planning for the Future” White Paper, because the future, no matter what the right hon. Gentleman says, will be different post-coronavirus? There will be virtual working, new strains and yearly jabs. Can he do that by Wednesday, because on that day, the glorious 1800s town hall of Ealing is potentially set to be dwarfed by a series of tower blocks, including one of 26 storeys, if these greedy developers get their way. Fight for us, Leader of the House!
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am not the greatest admirer of tower blocks, it has to be said, but I am not responsible for those sorts of planning decisions, many of which may be with the local authority and the Mayor of London, so the hon. Lady may well want to take it up with him. I cannot promise a debate by Wednesday, as I have just set out the business for next week, but of course the hon. Lady is right that the effects of the pandemic will change many aspects of our life. It is hard to predict exactly how at the moment, but all sorts of areas will need to be reconsidered—office working, the type of places or of homes that people want—and that needs to be taken into consideration. But I would just challenge her on support for local authorities. They have received massive support during the pandemic, including £4.6 billion of un-ring-fenced money so that they can deal with the problems, and their allocation has increased in other areas as well.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con) [V]
Tomorrow, I have a meeting with Highways England, when I will be raising a number of local priorities, including resurfacing the old and worn-out concrete surface of the A180 and the dangers faced by many villages when the main carriageway is closed due to repairs or accidents. Thanks to the excellent news yesterday that Immingham, Grimsby and the Humber ports are to be given free port status, it is even more important that we have an adequate highway network. Like many colleagues, I feel that as elected representatives we lack the necessary influence to determine the priorities of agencies such as Highways England. Can we have a debate about Highways England and how its priorities are set?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend raises an excellent point. He tempts me greatly, because I hope when he sees Highways England tomorrow that he will ask it on my behalf why it keeps on closing the M3 and the M4 at weekends, both of which are essential routes to the part of the world in which I live. It is extraordinarily vexing, so if he can do me a favour, I hope he will raise that with it. As always, he is the champion for Cleethorpes and for his constituency, and he is right to be concerned about the quality of our roads and ensuring that they are in the best possible condition. Her Majesty’s Government are providing £4 billion of taxpayers’ money for major structural renewals on Highways England’s network up to 2025, so it can meet the road condition targets it has been set. It is of course important that it consults with the public and Parliament in developing a programme for these works, and I will certainly pass on his comments to the Secretary of State for Transport. I encourage him to get good answers from Highways England.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) [V]
The gender pension gap stands at around 40.3%, more than twice the gender pay gap of 17.8%, representing a differential in pension income of around £7,500 a year. The pension triple lock does not apply to pension credit, discriminating against the oldest and poorest pensioners, who are disproportionately women, and those earning less than £10,000 a year—again, mostly women—are not automatically enrolled into a pension and will not therefore benefit from their employers’ contributions. Will the Leader of the House make a statement as to how he thinks his Government can address the specific challenges of the disproportionate poverty of older women, which was worsened by the acceleration of state pension age equalisation?
Mr Rees-Mogg
State pension age equalisation came about, ultimately, because of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, which said it was discriminatory to have different pension ages. Therefore, the decision was taken 30 years ago, or thereabouts, when my noble Friend Lord Lilley was the relevant Secretary of State, to even the ages, and that has been a fair and sensible policy. The hon. Lady mentions the triple lock. That, again, has been extraordinarily important in raising the level of pensions for both men and women across the country, so it is something that the Government are tackling and we are ensuring that pensioners are protected. If the hon. Lady wants a debate, I would suggest that this is a topic for the Budget debates.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Can I please refer my right hon. Friend back to the excellent question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg)? Does he agree that somebody needs to take comprehensive ownership of the road map for a return to a fully physical Parliament, and if so, who should that be?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend raises an interesting question—indeed, a complicated question—because who runs this House is something that I am not sure anybody has ever yet worked out, but perhaps one day we will. It is divided up between various bodies. The House of Commons Commission—very much led by you, Mr Speaker—will have the authority to decide when members of staff can come back, but the House itself determines the procedures within the Chamber. The current procedures continue until 31 March and then there will be an opportunity to decide to renew them, but they cannot be renewed indefinitely without the desire of the House to do it. I would certainly hope that we get back to normal in accordance with the road map, but that will be a decision for Members themselves.
Mr Speaker
As I did point out earlier, there is a road map going through to the Commission on Monday. Also, the Leader of the House does have a duty of care to the staff, as I do, to ensure that we try to keep in line with Public Health England.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
The vaccine roll-out is the most important national mission our country has undertaken in decades. While more and more people are being inoculated every day, I am concerned that there is a lack of a coherent national strategy for distributing oversupplies of the vaccine. Does the Leader of the House agree with me that we must ensure excess vaccines are distributed to those in need, especially in diverse communities like my own in Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough, where there are significant health inequalities and where, sadly, infections remain higher than the national average in some cases? Does he agree with me that the Government should urgently publish a strategy on this issue which can be scrutinised by this House?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady raises an important point. The vaccine roll-out is going extremely well and the best way of doing it is in accordance with the advice the Government have been given by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation—on the basis of age and people making appointments. Obviously, it is also sensible to use up any excess vaccine that is left at the end of a session, particularly the Pfizer vaccine which cannot be kept for a long time except at very low temperatures. I do not think, however, that it would be sensible to devise a specific strategy on this, because we want to focus the strategy on the delivery of the vaccine by age group. Therefore, I think it is absolutely right to leave the use of surplus to the discretion of the people who are handing out the vaccine, while accepting her important point that we make every effort, as the Government are, to reach the hard-to-reach groups to ensure that they are vaccinated, but they will all be covered by the age brackets
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
There has been a 170% increase in the number of dog thefts during the pandemic, a crime that brings immense distress to both owners and their pets. My constituents in Kettering are increasingly worried about that trend and they want to see the problem tackled firmly and decisively. May we have a Government statement on the appropriateness of the penalties available to the courts for convicted dog thieves and on the police response to this rising crime trend?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Her Majesty’s Government understand the high level of public interest in this issue and the undoubted distress caused to victims when their pets are stolen. I know many Members have raised this issue and campaigned on it on behalf of their constituents. It is an appalling crime, and I am sad to hear reports of it increasing over the past year. The theft of a pet is a criminal offence under the Theft Act 1968 and carries a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment. The Sentencing Council’s guidelines on theft now take account of the emotional distress on the victim caused by any theft offence, including the theft of a pet, meaning that the courts will now take that into account when considering the appropriate sentence. My hon. Friend will know that the Government are committed to recruiting an extra 20,000 police officers and have already recruited over 6,000 to ensure the police have the resources they need to deal with these and other crimes, but he may want an Adjournment debate on this important subject.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab) [V]
The Leader of the House will probably be as aware as anybody of the genocidal attacks on Christians, which are happening on a weekly or daily basis in Nigeria. I represent quite a large, mainly Christian, Nigerian community who are very worried about the situation. The Government in Abuja seem to be unwilling or unable, or perhaps both, to do anything about it or even lift a finger. We have had debates on this issue in the past in Back-Bench time, but would it be possible to have a statement from the Foreign Secretary or the relevant Minister of State on the situation in Nigeria?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. It is a matter of serious concern to Her Majesty’s Government, who have been engaging with the Nigerian Government on it. I happen to know that our exchanges are followed closely by the Nigerian high commission, who I expect will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has had to say, but I will also take it up with the Foreign Secretary to see what more the Government can do. It is extremely serious, and the reports of the kidnapping of children and the attacks on Christians that are taking place are very troubling.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) [V]
The country is doing incredibly well in terms of the vaccine roll-out. As the Prime Minister has said, it is “going gangbusters”. The infection rate is being driven down, and the country has been given a road map out of the lockdown, which I consider slightly cautious. I would like to see, given the science, that it is speeded up a little. I came into the House of Commons yesterday and, like today, it was sparsely populated, although busier because of the Budget. It was like a ghost town. Can I be reassured by the Leader of the House that the House of Commons will go no slower than the road map out of lockdown that the public will have to follow? If we do, we will look completely out of touch.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that point. Since 1340, Members have had a right of unobstructed access to this House and to this Chamber. They are entitled to come, and that is a fundamental constitutional point. As the restrictions are lifted, Members may feel entitled—may desire; may want—to exercise that right. I also agree that we should go no slower than the country at large. It seems to me that, if nightclubs are opening on 21 June, which I think are perhaps more her scene than mine—[Interruption.] Perhaps we should go together. We will take the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) with us too. If they are open, for heaven’s sake, the House of Commons should be open properly. We cannot be behind nightclubs, can we, Mr Speaker?
Mr Speaker
The question keeps being posed, and I want to reassure the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) that nobody is stopping MPs coming. What we are saying is, “Let’s do the right thing by each other”—nothing else. I understand that she may have thought that I want to reopen only in September. I reassure her that that is definitely not the case, hence why I have become involved with the road map to the commission on Wednesday, to make things happen absolutely in line with what is going on there. Of course, I think she and the Leader of the House may enjoy Annabel’s together, but let us move on.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
As a member of the BEIS Committee, I was alarmed by press reports overnight that the Business Secretary has, without consultation, axed the Industrial Strategy Council, and that the industrial strategy has been cancelled as a footnote to the Budget, at a time when an industrial strategy could not be more vital, as we rise to meet the challenges of rebuilding after covid, the climate emergency and the post-Brexit landscape, particularly in such regions as the north-west. Can the Leader of the House please advise when the Business Secretary will make a statement to the House for scrutiny of such an important change in policy direction, rather than Parliament finding out about it, as seems to be a recurring theme, through the media?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary will open the debate on the Budget on Tuesday 9 March. Nothing is being hidden from Parliament. Unless we were to go back to Gladstonian-length Budget speeches, which ran to over four hours on occasions, it is not possible to include everything that is in the papers issued with the Budget in the Budget speech, but my right hon. Friend will be open for scrutiny next Tuesday.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
As the Member for West Dorset and the promoter of the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill, I am delighted to hear that sitting Fridays will come back this Friday coming. I and fellow colleagues have been particularly diligent to ensure that we are ready and raring to go. We have been through Committee stage, and I very much hope that my right hon. Friend might ensure that we can get in this Friday coming. If, for whatever reason, we cannot quite manage it, would he be so kind as to make further time, to ensure that we can get the Bill through in this Session?
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I begin by thanking my hon. Friend for giving me my Union Jack face mask? He sports a similar one.
I am delighted that a motion to allow a sitting Friday on 12 March is on the Order Paper today. This is intended to allow remaining stages of those private Members’ Bills listed in the motion, including my hon. Friend’s Bill, to take place and I hope that the House will support the motion. There have been a significant number of representations, including from my own constituents, but from MPs as well, to bring these Bills back, so I hope that the motion, the solution, will be welcomed by the House. If the House were to make good progress next Friday, it is my intention to offer a further sitting Friday in order to finalise any of the outstanding Bills listed on the Order Paper and then move forward with Second Readings, if any are put forward. I hope that the Lords will find time to pass these Bills if they pass their Commons stages, but that is, of course, a matter for their Lordships.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) [V]
The Leader of the House will agree that democracy is very important, if not a quasi-sacred thing, and that when it is violated by the likes of Lukashenko in Ukraine, and, indeed, Donald Trump in America, we are all rightly repulsed. With that in mind, may I ask the Leader of the House a very simple question: if the Scottish people—or indeed the Welsh people, given the polling in Wales this morning—were to vote for independence at the ballot box, would he respect that choice of the Scottish or, indeed, the Welsh people?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I agree, as I do on many matters actually, with the hon. Gentleman. He is much missed in this Chamber and we hope to see him back physically in the not-too-distant future. It is a duller and quieter place without his regular sedentary interventions. He may have forgotten, but there was a referendum in 2014 in Scotland, which settled the issue. It seems to me that, in the midst of sorting out a pandemic, getting the economy back on its feet and resolving some little local difficulties going on with the leadership of the Scottish National party, it would be reckless to be proposing a referendum at this point.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]
There are 1.2 million stroke survivors in the United Kingdom. It is the largest cause of adult disability in this country. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House make time for a proper debate on the progress of the national stroke programme, because, two years on, the quality and availability of after-care and rehabilitation services, particularly specialist areas such as physio and speech therapy, remain very variable to the great concern of many families?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend raises a crucial point. The NHS long-term plan, published in January 2019, outlines commitments to improving stroke services, including better stroke rehabilitation services and increased access to specialist stroke units. Stroke services across England continue to provide rehabilitation and post-acute services to stroke survivors and their families and carers during the pandemic. In part, this has been helped by innovative methods of care delivery alongside face-to-face contact. Almost half of stroke survivors have had virtual care since covid began. More than 80% of them reported positive or very positive experiences. There are 20 integrated stroke delivery networks, giving full coverage across England. Integrated stroke delivery networks were established in shadow status in October 2020 and we expect them to be fully operational by spring 2021. Ninety per cent of stroke patients will receive care in a specialist stroke unit and more patients will have access to disability-reducing treatments of mechanical thrombectomy and thrombolysis. This combined with increased access to rehabilitation services will deliver improved long-term outcomes for stroke patients. I thank my hon. Friend for raising this very important issue.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) [V]
Welcome to North Antrim, Mr Speaker. I know that the Leader of the House cares passionately about this Union, and has growing concern about the breakdown of the following relationships: the internal relationships in Northern Ireland; north-south relationships across Ireland; and the UK-EU relationship, as a result of the outworking of the Northern Ireland protocol. Yesterday, during Northern Ireland questions, three Back-Bench Labour Members and one Labour Front-Bench Member expressed hostile and growing concern about the impact that the protocol is having on GB businesses trying to do trade with Northern Ireland. The Loyalist Communities Council wrote to the Prime Minister at the weekend to express concern and withdraw its support from the Belfast agreement. The Leader of the House will know the unanimous position of all strands of Unionism in their hostility and opposition to the protocol. Of course, businesses also tell us daily of the upset in respect of trade.
Will the Leader of the House inform us of when the Prime Minister will come to the House to make a statement about the extension of the grace periods put in place unilaterally by Her Majesty’s Government? What next steps will the Prime Minister take to protect the Union, to protect Northern Ireland businesses and to ensure that the genie does not get any further out of the bottle?
Mr Speaker
I’ve got to say that questions have to be much shorter and not statements. This is business questions.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I think I see a portrait of William of Orange behind the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley). It is always worth reminding the House that the then pope ordered a Te Deum to be sung in St Peter’s in celebration of William of Orange’s victory; Catholics therefore have an interest in a United Kingdom, too.
With regard to the protocol, I have to some extent already answered the question. What my noble Friend Lord Frost has done is really very important and indicates the Government’s commitment to making sure that the protocol works, and that the problems that have arisen are taken very seriously by the Government, which is important. We must get to a situation wherein the whole of the United Kingdom is able to trade freely, as required under the Act of Union 1801.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) [V]
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the impact of living with endometriosis on a person’s mental health? March is Endometriosis Awareness Month, and during an event held earlier this week by our all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis we heard powerful stories of how the psychological impact of the condition can be just as damaging as the physical pain. Integrated mental health support is sadly needed.
Mr Rees-Mogg
First, I convey my sincere sympathies to any women who have suffered as a result of endometriosis and encourage them to seek clinical advice as to what support is available.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines are there to help health and care professionals to deliver the best possible care to all women, based on the best available evidence. Health and care commissioners are expected to take them fully into account, and I urge all clinicians to follow the NICE guidelines on endometriosis and to do all they can to support the mental and physical health of those suffering from this extremely difficult condition.
Plans to develop a women’s health strategy were temporarily paused in the initial phase of the pandemic; however, the Department of Health and Social Care has recently restarted work in this policy area and will be setting out plans shortly. Endometriosis will be considered as part of the upcoming work on the women’s health strategy.
My hon. Friend may wish to apply for a Westminster Hall debate or an Adjournment debate to cover this subject—Mr Speaker is looking his normal benignant self as I suggest an Adjournment debate, so I think my hon. Friend may been in luck.
Mr Speaker
Let’s hope he is.
I will now suspend the House for a few minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.
Counter-Daesh Update
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on our ongoing campaign to counter Daesh. The safety and security of our citizens is obviously the Government’s highest priority. It is at the core of our work in tackling Daesh, which remains our most significant terrorist threat both at home and abroad. This month marks the two-year anniversary of the liberation of Syria and Iraq from Daesh’s barbaric rule, but, as we saw on 21 January in Baghdad, Daesh is still able to carry out lethal attacks.
The Global Coalition against Daesh estimates that there are still around 10,000 Daesh members at large across Syria and Iraq. Many terrorists remain in detention facilities, but others are hidden in civilian populations and camps for internally displaced persons, so support for Daesh still lingers in many communities. At the same time, while Iraq and Syria remain Daesh’s primary focus, it also presents a clear and growing global threat, so diminishing Daesh’s ability to operate in other parts of the world, including Africa and Asia, must also be a priority for the international community. We must not allow it to take root elsewhere. Meanwhile, here at home, the threat we face from Islamist extremism is all too clear. The ongoing inquest into the horrific Manchester Arena attack, which killed 23 people, provides a tragic daily reminder of that.
We continue this struggle because we appreciate the real and direct threat it presents to the British people. The UK will continue to be a leading member of the 83-member Global Coalition, providing military support to tackle the remnants of Daesh, delivering essential aid to liberated communities and countering Daesh’s vile and warped propaganda. With that in mind, let me now set out the steps we are taking.
Since the start of the UK’s military intervention against Daesh, known as Operation Shader, the UK has trained more than 120,000 Iraqi and Iraqi Kurdish soldiers and released more than 4,000 munitions at enemy targets during the course of the air campaign. The global coalition as a whole has invested more than $4 billion to ensure that our partners on the ground and in the region are better trained and better equipped than Daesh. As part of the coalition efforts to prevent the resurgence of Daesh, the UK has provided support and funding for a range of other initiatives across the region. That includes things like the improvement of detention facilities in the north-eastern part of Syria that house Daesh fighters.
Military support for the sovereign Government of Iraq is now adapting in line with the changing security situation, but also Iraq’s growing military capabilities; and thanks to UK efforts and those of the wider coalition, Iraqi security forces are increasingly able to conduct successful independent counter-Daesh operations, and they now have the capability to deliver tactical training to their own armed forces, which is also important. That has allowed the coalition to reduce troop numbers, focusing instead on providing specialist operational support and advice to our Iraqi counterparts; and for that purpose, the UK maintains troops deployed to the region, supporting the Iraqi security forces, including officers working with NATO and with coalition allies.
On 18 February, the Secretary of State for Defence joined NATO Ministers in agreeing to incrementally expand the NATO Mission Iraq in line with that particular strategic focus. Of course, the Royal Air Force continues to conduct routine armed reconnaissance missions to support the Iraqi security forces. We are very proud of the role of our armed forces in that critical theatre.
Most recently, I can report to the House that on 11 February a coalition surveillance aircraft located a number of Daesh fighters. They were occupying two dispersed encampments on the banks of the Tharthar river, west of the city of Bayji. Two UK Typhoon FGR4s conducted careful checks of the surrounding area for civilians, before carrying out simultaneous attacks using two Paveway IV guided bombs against each group. The bombs hit their targets within the encampments, eliminating the terrorist threat.
Beyond Daesh, our support in the region continues to be challenged, including by the persistent and ongoing threat from Iranian-aligned Shi’a militia groups. We have seen a concerning pattern of attacks in recent weeks, including an attack on the coalition air base in Erbil in the Kurdish part of Iraq, which tragically killed two civilians, as well as injuring several coalition staff. The UK condemns these attacks on coalition bases and diplomatic premises, and we will continue to be absolutely resolute and robust in our response. Iran’s proxies must not be allowed to destabilise Iraq and the wider region, and we work very closely with our allies to support the Government in Iraq, protecting coalition forces and foreign missions. We are also working together to prosecute those responsible for such attacks, where, of course, the Iraqi people are often the primary victims.
The presence of covid-19 in both Syria and Iraq remains an acute challenge. Healthcare systems in both countries are under very severe pressure. Then there is the economic impact—the cost to jobs, to livelihoods—and the wider social costs that communities will feel for many years to come. We need to be particularly vigilant to ensure that these do not provide the conditions—the fertile ground—that Daesh can exploit to gain further support. In that sense, the humanitarian response forms part of our security objectives.
The UK remains one of the largest humanitarian donors to the Syria crisis, having spent more than £3.5 billion since 2012. Over that period we have distributed 28 million food rations, delivered 20 million medical consultations and dispensed 14 million vaccines. In addition to our existing aid commitments in Syria, the UK has also provided funding to delivery partners to help mitigate the impact of covid-19. That complements our ongoing support to deliver activities that help tackle transmission of the virus—things such as health care, water hygiene kits and sanitation support.
In relation to Iraq, clearly the economic challenges are compounded by covid-19 as well as, of course, the fall in oil prices. This compound crisis threatens Iraq’s stability and again risks creating the conditions that would allow extremism to grow; so we are working to counter that. We have committed £272 million in humanitarian support in Iraq since 2014, providing an absolutely vital lifeline to millions, with shelter, medical care and things like clean water. To date, UK funding has helped provide food assistance to more than 500,000 people, life-saving healthcare services to more than 4.3 million people, and safe drinking water and hygiene facilities to more than 3.5 million people.
We are working with the Government of Iraq and the international community to stabilise and reform the economy, in order to create and build the opportunities for all Iraqis. As friends of Iraq, we stand behind Prime Minister Kadhimi’s reform vision, together with all members of the coalition. I had the opportunity to meet Prime Minister Kadhimi in London last October for talks and to reinforce our message of solidarity with him and the Iraqi people.
As Daesh’s ability to plot its external operations has been downgraded, it is more reliant on its perverse propaganda and warped narrative to try to maintain its relevance and foment support for the conduct of terrorist attacks. With that objective, Daesh maintains a steady drumbeat of violent communications, which it distributes via encrypted messaging applications. I want to express my appreciation to the British media, which has generally shown admirable restraint and editorial judgment in reporting on these matters.
This is a critical moment. Yes, Daesh’s brand has weakened, but none the less it remains globally recognised. It has been adopted by an assortment—a whole range—of violent groups, from Mozambique right the way across to the Philippines.
In December 2020, the UK counterterrorism internet referral unit saw a 7% rise in the volume of terrorist content online, and we can see a worrying rise in the proportion of children and teenagers who are now being arrested for terrorism offences. It was Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu of the Met who described lockdown and the accessibility of terrorist content online as a “perfect storm”, because terrorists have digital access to those who are probably the most susceptible to extremist narratives.
We are tackling Daesh’s propaganda head on, and I am proud that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office leads on this work on behalf of the global coalition. We have carried out a range of targeted and effective offensive cyber-operations. During the fight to liberate Mosul from Daesh control, we used those capabilities to disrupt Daesh’s battlefield communications, destabilise its ranks and help the coalition to surprise Daesh and, ultimately, overwhelm it.
In November, we revealed that the National Cyber Force is now bringing together the expertise of GCHQ, MI6, the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory and the Ministry of Defence, to take the online fight to terrorists, including, of course, Daesh. We are degrading its network and dismantling its lies, but also, and importantly, we are building resilience on the ground to its violent, extremist narrative. That particular battle—I would describe it as attritional—is often invisible to the public and the media, but it is absolutely essential, and we are prosecuting it with total vigour and determination.
We want to continue to play our full role in combating Daesh across each of these essential strategic fronts, to ensure the safety and security of the UK and Iraq and of the people and interests affected around the world. As the Prime Minister has said, we will never be complacent in the struggle. We will not let up until Daesh is consigned to the history books. I commend this statement to the House.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of the statement. I hope this marks the return to the quarterly updates that we were used to. It has been seven months since the last statement, and as he has shown in his update, a lot has happened since.
I want to start by restating our support for the ongoing military operation against Daesh. In particular, I pay tribute to our armed forces, who continue their brave work to defeat Daesh, train and support Iraqi forces and create the conditions for the Iraqi people to rebuild their lives and their country in peace. They deserve our full support. Given the key role of the specialist support that the Foreign Secretary just outlined, can he confirm that, when the Government bring forward the integrated review that we expect imminently, there will not be a cut in numbers to our armed forces?
Yesterday, 10 rockets targeted an Iraqi military base—the Al Asad airbase hosting coalition troops. One contractor, sadly, died in the attack and 10 British personnel were, thankfully, unharmed. What discussions have the Government had about this incident and what assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of the ongoing threat to British and coalition forces?
The fight against Daesh is not simply a military conflict; it requires all the tools of our statecraft to counter extremism, to rebuild communities and to support development. The Foreign Secretary has just told us that the humanitarian response forms part of our security objectives; if he believes that, how does he square it with plans to drastically cut the development budget? UK aid is vital, and I would say indistinguishable from the security threat we face, in rebuilding Iraq to pave the foundations for lasting peace and prosperity, as well as in providing crucial humanitarian support in Syria. That is why we are so concerned about the effects of the Government cuts. The Foreign Secretary said a great deal in his statement about the important contributions that the UK has made in recent years and currently makes, but he said very little about what he plans to do over coming years. We already know that the Government’s cuts include a reduction of around £0.5 billion to the conflict, stability and security fund, which includes programmes such as the counter-terrorism programme fund and extensive activities in Iraq designed to reduce the probability of future insurgencies. Can the Foreign Secretary explain to the House why he thinks these cuts are in the national interest and how they will affect the fight against Daesh?
A record 12.4 million people in Syria are struggling to find enough food to eat and to access healthcare, with more than 80% living below the poverty line, while an unprecedented 3 million Iraqis have been forced to flee their homes due to violence, half of whom are children, and nearly 7 million are in need of humanitarian assistance. We must tackle the social and economic challenges facing people if we are to defeat Daesh, so can the Foreign Secretary today rule out cutting aid to Iraq and Syria, as he has done in respect of Yemen, and can he tell us when the replacement refugee resettlement scheme will begin?
Can the Foreign Secretary also tell us what the Government plan to do to deal with the British citizens currently in camps in north-east Syria? His recent letter to four of his Conservative colleagues seemed to suggest that far higher numbers—up to 900 people—travelled to the region than we had believed, and a significant number of those remain. This is causing tension with our allies in the United States, who have expressed extraordinary frustration at the UK’s inaction. The Foreign Secretary does not need to take my word for it; he only needs to look behind him, because there is serious disquiet on his own Benches about this issue. Our US allies believe that the global threat from ISIS will grow if this remains unaddressed. Does the Foreign Secretary accept President Biden’s case that the global threat from ISIS will grow if this remains unaddressed, and given that the Government have it made clear that they do not intend to repatriate British citizens, can he tell me what alternative approach he intends to take in order to deal with this serious security threat?
I was deeply troubled to hear the Foreign Secretary outline how children are being targeted by Daesh propaganda. Does he agree that it is appalling that British children in the UK are being groomed to join Daesh, and will he therefore tell me what steps the Government are taking to protect children from this threat?
Finally, Iran has continued to make efforts to destabilise the region, including supporting and arming militia groups in Iraq, which the Foreign Secretary referenced. What specific steps are the Government taking to counter Iranian destabilisation efforts in Iraq, and what assessment has he made of the wider threat of Daesh outside of Iraq and Syria? Does the Government believe that this threat is currently growing?
We will continue to support the Foreign Secretary and appreciate the steps that have been taken and that he has laid out today, but, with so much Government policy currently under review in terms of the future of our armed forces, foreign policy, security, defence and aid, we must hear far more about our future focused commitments to defeat Daesh.
Dominic Raab
May I first thank the hon. Lady for her support for the military action we are taking against Daesh? We have not always had that from the Opposition side of the House, but it is important. It is important for our armed forces to know that they have cross-party support, and it is important for our enemies to know that they cannot divide us. She asked about the integrated review. I can reassure her that that will retain its strategic focus on countering Daesh and the terrorist threat that we face. She also referred to recent attacks on coalition forces. Of course, they involve both Daesh and Shi’a militias. Our approach is to work closely with coalition forces, but the big step change that we are seeing is the reinforcement of the capability of the Iraqi security forces. We will continue to work on that, ultimately for a long-term sustainable and better future for the Iraqi people. That is the course that we need to pursue.
I totally agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of official development assistance, and about the military approach that we are taking being in lockstep with having an effective humanitarian initiative. I have read out some of the figures that show how seriously we take this, and I can reassure her that we will remain among the leading countries around the world in all our ODA, particularly in relation to Iraq and Syria, and this is well above the level that we have had under previous Governments.
The hon. Lady asked about the global resettlement scheme. That is one for the Home Office, but she will have heard the message from the Home Secretary and the Home Office, and I am certainly engaged with that to ensure that it is effective and continues this country’s proud tradition of providing a haven to those who flee persecution.
The hon. Lady also asked about foreign terrorist fighters. Those individuals who have fought with or supported Daesh should face justice, primarily where the crimes have being committed, which is in the region, where the victims are. It remains our view that a prosecution pathway is most likely to be effective there, not least for evidence-gathering purposes. When individuals return to the UK, they can and will be investigated. She will know and respect the fact that that is handled by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service independently, but we work closely with all our partners in order to achieve that. What she said about the US was nonsense. We are in lockstep with all our allies.
The hon. Lady also asked about minors. That is particularly important because of the moral duty, which we recognise. Obviously we would advise anyone against travel to Syria. There is no consular support there—certainly not the kind of regular consular service that we would normally be able to provide—as conditions on the ground make that impossible. As I have said to the House previously, we continue to work with all those concerned to facilitate the return of unaccompanied or orphan children where that is feasible with no risk to security and where it can be done practically. I will not comment on the numbers, as that is obviously sensitive, but I take this very seriously. We regard those children as the innocents of the scourge of war, and wherever it is safe and possible, we will put our protective arms around them. I hope I have addressed all the various points that the hon. Lady raised, and I reiterate my thanks for her support on military action, which is so important.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) [V]
I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and update today. He of all people knows very well that Daesh is not a command structure but really an ideas network that has spread an inspiration of terror and hate around the world. So while I very much welcome his update on the military action and offer my complete support to my former comrades in the actions they are taking, can I confirm with him that really we are looking not for pattern of life but for pattern of thought, and that we need to work with those in the region who can help to change it?
What contact has my right hon. Friend had with the Al-Azhar mosque in Cairo? What engagement has he had with the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan? What engagement has he had with others in the region who have been more successful in changing minds than in simply ending them? He knows better than anyone that, as we work with others around the region, the UK’s rule of law and image of justice UK can help and support, and do a lot more to change the potency of Daesh and to end its evil influence, not just in Iraq and Syria, as he has rightly mentioned, but in Yemen and Afghanistan, where it is beginning to spread.
This is not just a question of force, although force is necessary; nor is it just a question of money, but it is a question of justice and of supporting the most vulnerable. In that light, I hope that the Foreign Secretary will see that the commitment that the UK made at the pledging conference in Yemen is indeed the floor and not the ceiling, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa said on Tuesday.
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. He is right to say that as well as all the material support that we provide on humanitarian terms and all the military action that we take, we need to confront the ideology head-on. Of course he is right that Jordan and Egypt are critically important in that, as are many others in the region.
On what my hon. Friend mentioned in relation to justice, one important thing is that wherever it is possible—often it is not, because of either the conditions on the ground or the availability of evidence—to prosecute and convict people involved, as we have recently with the 10-year custodial sentence for Mohammed Abdallah, an IS sniper who was convicted back in 2017, it helps to demystify the frankly perverse but none the less romantic image that people, particularly those who are susceptible to being groomed or radicalised, may have of Daesh. The UK concept of justice is not some romantic frill; actually, it has a very powerful effect, because it exposes what we are really talking about here.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) [V]
I, too, thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. I stress that the Scottish National party stands four-square alongside the military action against Daesh undertaken by the UK Government and their allies. This is a common fight and a common endeavour, and we support these actions.
We do differ on some of the wider questions, and I reiterate our concern that, for a variety of global reasons, now is absolutely not the time for the UK to walk away from its 0.7% aid commitment. However, may I urge the Foreign Secretary, as the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) did, to commit to freezing, even within that reduced spend, the aid to Iraq and Syria? That is really very necessary in a region that is in part in chaos because of the foreign policies of the UK and others.
The Kurdistan Regional Government deserve a great deal of recognition and respect for the work that they have done on providing safe haven for refugees and minorities. That deserves support, but so too—I would be grateful for an assurance from the Foreign Secretary that this is under way and should be built upon—do their civil functions to help create a more secure and stable society in their area. The military action is supported and welcomed, but there are civil functions that could be supported too, and that would certainly have our support.
I strongly agree with the points that the Foreign Secretary made on disinformation. The disinformation fight against Daesh and its network of ideas is crucial, but it is a wider issue too. In the SNP’s submission to the integrated foreign and defence review, we called for a national strategy against disinformation in all its forms and the appointment of a hybrid threats ambassador to co-ordinate that activity. I reiterate to the Foreign Secretary that that would be a really useful thing to happen in the integrated review when it comes forward, and if it did happen, it would have our support.
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support and for the forensic contributions that he makes on this important issue. As I said to the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), we are grateful to have the support of the whole House and the whole United Kingdom for the military action that our armed forces take, often at some risk to themselves. It is important to have that solidarity.
The hon. Gentleman asked, as others have, about the humanitarian element of the work that we do. That is crucial; it is a key part of the strategic jigsaw. We will ensure that we continue to provide humanitarian support and the aid that goes in to provide the supplementary support that is so essential to taking effective military action. He is right to praise the work of our Kurdish partners. They are very important and, yes, we support them both militarily and in their impact on institutions and civil society on the ground.
On disinformation, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the SNP’s submission to the integrated review. He makes a very important contribution. How we deal with some of the new types of threat that we face, from cyber to misinformation, will be crucial to dealing with many of the threats that we face not just in Syria and Iraq but across the world, so we welcome that support.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Now that the caliphate has been overthrown, Daesh reverts to a more traditional form of terrorism requiring long-term containment measures. In order to bring this to an end, a lot depends on who is sponsoring terrorist movements. What evidence do we have of Turkish behaviour towards our Kurdish allies in Syria, and what evidence do we have of Pakistan finally turning its back on an ambivalent approach to Islamist terrorist movements?
Dominic Raab
I thank my right hon. Friend, the Chair of the other Select Committee—the Intelligence and Security Committee—and he is right to raise both those issues. It is difficult for me to talk, as he will understand, about evidence as such, but in both cases we have to monitor it very carefully, not least because both of the countries and forces that he referred to do not often represent a single whole—there will be different views within, for example, the Pakistani Government—but, certainly, we feel that there has been an improvement and a recognition that we face a single global threat that we must all rally round and work together to tackle.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) [V]
May I start by thanking our armed forces for all they do in the fight against Daesh? Effective counter-terrorism strategies require a whole of society approach to preventing and countering violent extremism and radicalisation. It means bolstering healthcare, education, governance and civil society, and reducing poverty—all moneys that come from our aid budget, so by cutting overall aid spending by £4.5 billion, or 30% compared with 2019, this Government risk making the world a less safe place. Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that link, and what recent impact assessment has been made of the effects of planned ODA cuts on our counter-extremism efforts?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Lady for her support for the military action we are taking. She is right to emphasise the importance of a strategic approach. I do not accept the point she has made about ODA, not least because we remain one of the very greatest and largest donors in ODA terms generally, but also in the two specific theatres I have described today.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con) [V]
I know my right hon. Friend will join me in congratulating Karim Khan on his appointment as chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Court, but he will also know the painstaking work he was doing through UNITAD—the Investigative Team to Promote Accountability for Crimes Committed by Daesh/ISIL—in Iraq in bringing to trial the war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity perpetrated by Daesh against, specifically, the Yazidis. Could he say what support his Department continues to provide to UNITAD in its work in this regard?
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend and, as she says, I warmly welcome the international community’s election of the first British chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Court. Along with Joanna Korner—Judge Jo Korner—who is representing us as a judge on the ICC, I think nothing could be a more potent symbol of the strength of global Britain and the force for good that we represent in the world. My hon. Friend asked about UNITAD. We fully support UNITAD’s work, and I thank her for raising this. We have provided £2 million for the UN investigative team for the accountability of Daesh particularly, and that obviously helps support the investigations of violence against minority communities and, critically, helps witnesses and survivors come forward with evidence.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and the Secretary of State and the Government for their determination to destroy Daesh. In response to the covid-19 outbreak, many countries have seen increases in levels of violence towards religious, belief and other ethnic communities. The Institute of Development Studies has stated:
“With the security forces turning their attention to implementing lockdown measures, Daesh…are re-emerging to attack minorities they previously had targeted”.
For example, in Nigeria, Boko Haram has stepped up its attacks on individuals and churches, and on schools as well. Will the Secretary of State share his plans to specifically support vulnerable religions and belief communities that are suffering due to increased religious violence from Daesh terrorist groups?
Dominic Raab
I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have played a leading role in the global coalition, which has scaled back and ended Daesh’s occupation of territory. That is critical because that is the way Daesh subjugates minorities—Christians and others—who have suffered grievously as a result. We also support efforts towards accountability for crimes that have been committed, particularly in Syria, against Christians but also other minorities. That includes the support we provide the UN’s International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism, which is preparing the ground for prosecutions. The military action to scale back control of territory frees up those communities, and we also want to see accountability, so that there is no impunity for the crimes committed.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend has already outlined, the last airstrike against Daesh took place on 11 February, when two Daesh encampments were destroyed by laser-guided, precision Paveway bombs, without one civilian casualty. Will he join me in congratulating those Royal Air Force aircrew based at RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, who, without much publicity or fanfare, and quietly, bravely continue to fight our enemies from the skies above Syria and Iraq?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I pay tribute to not only the RAF teams, but all our armed forces involved in the operations in Syria and Iraq for the critical work they do. He is also right to point to the care and attention that our armed forces, who are renowned the world over, take to avoid any civilian casualties. That is important not just militarily, because with surgical attacks we avoid creating a groundswell—a backlash—against the intervention we take.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind) [V]
On Tuesday, the Secretary of State and I engaged in debate about future policy in Afghanistan. One major reason for the dilemma now faced by NATO—this was alluded to—is the increasing influence of Daesh in the country. Considering the implications for regional security, what role does he envisage for the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation in future Afghan security policy?
Dominic Raab
I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman about the specific organisation to which he refers. In general in relation to Afghanistan, he will know that we are following the negotiations—the arrangements—between the Afghan civilian Government and the Taliban, and making sure that the approach we take is linked to conditions on the ground. That must be the right way forward—to use our influence to moderate and have a positive impact on the future Government after the withdrawal of troops.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) [V]
I thank all our armed forces for the work they do. Being a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme is proving to be an eye-opener in terms of their day-to-day experiences. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the coalition is essential in liberating territory held by Daesh and supporting the Iraqi security services?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is spot on, as ever. It is important that we push back on Daesh and the militia that are destabilising not just Iraq, but the region. Crucial to the long-term sustainability, viability and prosperity of that country is building up the independent resilience of the Iraqi security forces. We are focusing on both those elements, and that was very much at the heart of the talks I had with Prime Minister al-Kadhimi when he was here last year.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
In addition to winning the military war against Daesh, we must ensure that we win the peace, so it is bitterly disappointing that the Chancellor is pulling the UK back from its commitments to the most vulnerable, despite protestations across the world, the third sector and the political spectrum. Can the Secretary of State tell us what cuts will be forthcoming to programmes supporting communities ravaged by Daesh throughout the middle east and north Africa?
Dominic Raab
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern. We are a leader in ODA, and we will remain a leader in ODA. The precise allocations, which I think he is after, will be published formally, in the normal way, in September. It is worth noting that we have spent £3.5 billion in relation to the humanitarian response in Syria, which includes £1.7 billion on supporting Syrian refugees and host communities. We have a proud record, and we will continue to do it, not just because it is the right thing to do but because it makes for effective policy.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
I applaud the Government’s continuing commitment to countering Daesh. However, Daesh is not the only destabilising regime in the region. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that there is more to be done through our allies and our own forces to combat the threat posed by Iranian proxy terror groups, including Hezbollah, which is financed and directed by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is right. He will know that we proscribe the entirety of Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation, and we have an asset freeze in place against the whole organisation. The IRGC in its entirety is subject to UK autonomous sanctions. We will never let up and constantly look at how we can maintain our targeted and forensic approach to dealing with them militarily and the financial support that they get and thrive on.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]
How many of the 900 United Kingdom citizens to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) referred who left the country to fight for and support Daesh have been brought to justice either in the United Kingdom or abroad for any offences they have committed?
Dominic Raab
I am happy to write to the right hon. Lady with the specific numbers that we have, but as I have said, our focus has been first and foremost on prosecuting in the region—where that is possible, that seems to be the right thing to do on jurisdictional grounds and for the victims—but also when they return. I will see whether we have the breakdown of numbers that she wants and write to her, if I may.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Médecins sans Frontières, the wonderful medical charity, has just announced that one of its staff members has sadly been killed in the giant al-Hawl camp, which houses families of Islamic State fighters in Syria. That brings to 30 the number of people who have died in attacks in the camp. This sprawling hotbed of ISIS discontent houses 65,000 people. What are Her Majesty’s Government doing to contain the threat posed by this number of people in that location?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is not just a strategic danger; we also have to think of the vulnerable people who are at risk. We are working closely with all our partners. Of course, those camps are a target not just militarily but for the warped propaganda and narrative that Daesh and others seek to sow.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]
The Foreign Secretary is entitled to ask for and get the support for the military operations against Daesh, but does he agree that we also have to make sure that we challenge the conditions that allow for the rise and the existence of terror, wherever that is? That is not just about humanitarian assistance; it is also about investment in education, health, the economy and the civil institutions that make nations work. What is he doing to lead an international coalition that guarantees support in those areas, as we have successfully done with the coalition to challenge Daesh militarily?
Dominic Raab
I agree with the hon. Gentleman: there is a whole range of international collaboration that goes on. I have to say that the principal cause is not some sort of underlying, opaque set of socioeconomic conditions; it is the fact that there is a tyrant in Syria, Daesh is feeding on the instability, and Iran is promoting proxies and militias in the region.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con) [V]
I welcome the statement and the Government’s commitment to tackle the lingering threat of Daesh. On Monday, a Syria relief report was published, authored by my constituent and Chapel-en-le-Frith resident Charles Lawley. The report found that 99% of internally displaced people in north-west Syria have symptoms compatible with post-traumatic stress disorder, yet only 1% were aware of any mental health support available to them. With this in mind, will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that the UK will continue to be a major donor to the humanitarian crisis in Syria and look carefully at support for mental trauma for victims of conflict?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We obviously focus on the material support—hygiene, water, sanitation and the like—but the scale of PTSD and wider mental health issues in those theatres, in the internally displaced persons camps, is legion. We need to keep our focus as best we can, in the incredibly difficult conditions that the aid and humanitarian workers operate in, to try to alleviate that suffering too.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The extremist and evil ideology of ISIS, or Daesh, is diabolical and it needs to be dealt with. In the light of the recent deployment of our brave British troops to Mali, does the Secretary of State believe that the threat of Daesh is spreading and that our current foreign and defence policy is sufficient to protect ourselves from this threat?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman asks thankfully an excellent question. Certainly the curtailment of the territory within which Daesh can operate in Syria has been important, but of course, like a Hydra, it can sprout limbs elsewhere. That is the key thing that we need to watch because, as other hon. Members have said, Daesh, or equivalent terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda or the successors to al-Qaeda, are looking for the underlying conditions, be it conflict or instability, to prey on. So we must be eternally vigilant to that from the middle east through to the Sahel and many other places.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to crack down on the spread of Daesh’s influence across the globe and, in particular, what steps he is taking to cut off its financial resources?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend raises an excellent point. Whatever the perverse but romantic ideology Daesh spouts, it relies on cold, hard cash. That is why robbing and depriving it of territory, particularly in Syria, has been so crucial. Yes, we do seek to target the financial lines of credit and other financial support, but it is also important to note that as Daesh has lost territory, it has lost control over oil resources and the people it subjugates, including with illegal taxation, so the territorial aspect is also crucial to the financial objectives.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) [V]
The Foreign Secretary is absolutely right that Daesh poses a global threat and we absolutely must not allow it to take root elsewhere. That being the case, does he not agree that it is surely counterproductive to be cutting our aid to Yemen and to be continuing to supply arms to Saudi Arabia for their use in the conflict in Yemen?
Dominic Raab
We are still a world-leading donor in relation to Yemen. We have remained and will remain between third and fifth in terms of the top donors. As the right hon. Gentleman already knows but I am happy to repeat, we have a world-leading export licence regime that makes sure that anything that could be used for illegal purposes cannot be exported.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) [V]
The Foreign Secretary is absolutely right that Daesh’s operations pose a threat not only to the people in north Africa and the middle east but to our own security in the UK. With that in mind, will he support the US’s targeted response against militia units and make sure that the UK stands alongside President Biden on such matters?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is right and, as I have expressed in public statements recently, we have supported the action that has been taken, and we will always stand shoulder to shoulder with our American allies in tackling the militias, Daesh and all those who threaten our interests and our people.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Pope Francis is due to visit Iraq in the coming days. It is the first visit of a pope in the country’s history and he is expected to visit some of the ancient Christian communities in the country who have suffered so greatly under the oppression and terror of Daesh. What specific measures are the Government undertaking to ensure that, as well as tackling Daesh directly, we are supporting the communities—Christian and other faith communities—who are at such risk from its violence and terror?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman raises a really important point. Of course, the UK is a member of the global alliance standing up for freedom of religious belief, both in Syria—I have mentioned the steps that we are taking to address the persecution of minorities—and in Iraq. The opportunity is there to work with the Iraqi Government in a different way and we take that very seriously, not just because we feel that we have a moral duty to do it, but because we think that that is the sustainable future for a cohesive Iraq that is fit and prosperous for all its people.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con) [V]
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and I associate myself with the comments made about the excellent work of our armed forces in keeping us safe. Does my right hon. Friend agree that operations against Daesh, including Operation Shader, represent the best of international co-operation?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is important that we have a team effort in the struggle against Daesh, partly because of the severity of the threat that it poses and partly because of the amorphous nature in which it can appear. It is therefore important to have cohesive international collaboration and this is a very good example of that.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) [V]
Notwithstanding the threat from Daesh, Iran’s support for terrorist activity across the region and in Europe, as we have learned from the Assadi trial, also poses a real threat. Will the Foreign Secretary give an assurance that Iran’s aggression and support for terrorism will be included in any discussions on a revamped Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; that is a key aspect of addressing and dealing with Iran. I was in Paris recently not just with my French and German opposite numbers—we also had a virtual meeting with the US Secretary of State, Tony Blinken. Clearly, we are all agreed—so there is an element of transatlantic solidarity and cohesion, which has been reinforced—not just on the importance of nuclear compliance and getting Iran back to systemic compliance rather than non-compliance, but on dealing with its wider destabilising activities, including those that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
John Howell (Henley) (Con) [V]
My right hon. Friend is so right to stress that the threat of Daesh is not dead; I have seen for myself in Nigeria how the activities of Daesh-related groups are still causing mayhem. Does he think that this is not going to be solved until we have got rid of President Assad in Syria and have a regime in there that we can trust and that can work on our behalf?
Dominic Raab
I totally agree with my hon. Friend that it is very difficult to see a scenario where Syria returns to peace, stability and some kind of normalcy with President Assad at the helm.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) [V]
I also pay tribute to all our armed forces, who are doing some brave work in the region. The Secretary of State has said that he is aware of fighters returning to the UK. May I ask him—if he does not have the information, he can write to me—what numbers are being charged, what numbers are under control orders and what their status is when they come back?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. I am happy to write to him about the numbers. Obviously, anyone who returns from Syria or Iraq who poses a threat to the UK is very carefully monitored by the authorities and appropriate action is taken. Prosecutions are highly dependent on the evidence that can be gleaned, but I will write to him with more detail.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
I welcome this statement on the UK’s continuing commitment to defeat groups such as Daesh and the dangerous ideology upon which they are based. Daesh has sought to exploit power vacuums throughout the region and to build up influence, and the same may be said of Iran. Will my right hon. Friend set out what steps the UK is taking to prevent and deter Iran’s malign activities?
Dominic Raab
As I said in the answer I gave a few moments ago, one element of those things is part of the so-called JCPOA-plus considerations. More generally, with all our partners in the region, we are looking at our resilience and the support we provide for those who are threatened by Iran’s activities. My hon. Friend will also know that those will not just be on territory. In relation to freedom of navigation, it is important to provide support for international shipping, and that is particularly salient in the strait of Hormuz.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) [V]
Thousands of Kurdish men and women died fighting Daesh and defeated them in many parts of northern Syria and Iraq, but the Turkish incursion into northern Syria has emboldened Daesh-supporting militia. The UN has said that Turkish-backed militia fighting in Syria continue to commit war crimes against Kurdish civilians, including rape and torture. Militias made up of former Daesh fighters, such as al-Nusra, are strengthening with the backing of Turkey. Will the Secretary of State join me in condemning Turkey’s support for these militias?
Dominic Raab
Of course, Turkey has received a significant number of refugees itself. I can tell the hon. Lady that we have made clear our opposition to Turkey’s military operation in the north-east of Syria. I have to say at the same time that Turkey is an important NATO ally and a key partner. It does an extraordinary amount countering terrorist threats and managing those migration challenges that I mentioned. At the same time, notwithstanding what I said earlier, we strongly support Turkey’s efforts to try to secure a ceasefire, which has reduced the risk of further violence in the Idlib province. Those are the approaches we take, and of course it depends a little bit on the area we are talking about.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
My right hon. Friend clearly understands that we have a huge number of UK citizens who have gone to fight for Daesh and at the moment have been captured. What action is being taken and what action is he taking to bring those people to justice, whether within the region or by returning them to the UK, where they would face the justice of our courts?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want to see accountability and we want to see a deterrent effect. Obviously, it is difficult. It is challenging on the ground, but our preference, and I think the preference for the victims, would be to have the crimes dealt with in the territory where those crimes have been committed. That means seeking to provide support for a justice pathway in the region. At the same time, if we have UK nationals or anyone else who has been there and been engaged in criminal activity or in fighting, we will monitor them and where we have got evidence, we will prosecute them here at home.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) [V]
I join in the commendation of many of the actions of the UK Government and, of course, our armed forces. Ultimately, we need a stable and sustainable solution in Syria, Iraq and the wider middle east. On the one hand, we sadly have countries such as Russia and Turkey pulling in negative directions, but on the other hand we have the opportunity of a new Administration in the United States. What consideration is being given to the convening of some form of international conference, possibly under the auspices of the United Nations, to renew diplomacy and find a common way forward?
Dominic Raab
That is an interesting idea. Whether something under the auspices of the UN as a whole would be the right way to go is another question, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the new US Administration is actively engaged with partners. The President has made a clear and palpable virtue of consulting not only European partners but many others. Ultimately, many of the challenges that we are talking about result from strategic tensions that need to be resolved and, ultimately, they can be resolved only through diplomatic initiatives. The hon. Gentleman is right to put the emphasis on that, on top of the vital military work that we do and the humanitarian relief that supports and buttresses those efforts.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
Daesh is far from defeated—they are regrouping—but I join the Foreign Secretary in commending the efforts of our military in the counter-Daesh coalition. The coalition’s frustration is the absence of a viable post-operational plan, because unless the end of the conflict is quickly followed by improvements to governance and security, the enemy is free to regroup, retrain and fight again, as we see in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In Syria, tens of thousands of hard-liners are escaping from internment camps and detention camps such as al-Hol. The Syrians are asking for our support; surely we could do more to facilitate the processing of those hard-liners. With the US now focusing on another area of instability, namely Yemen, will the Secretary of State say whether we are committed to helping to secure a political resolution and a ceasefire and, if required, to leading a US peacekeeping force in that country?
Dominic Raab
My right hon. Friend, who chairs the Defence Committee, asked four or five questions in one; I want to try to do them justice, but I am conscious of the strictures of the Chair.
My right hon. Friend makes some really good points. On Yemen, the UK has been and remains one of the leading not just aid donors but supporters of Martin Griffiths, the special envoy, and the initiative, and we will continue that. We have made it clear that we fully support Saudi in its efforts to bring an end to the conflict and also to bring pressure to bear on the Houthis, who threaten, seek to destabilise and rely on Iran for their support.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for making his statement and am extremely grateful for his responding to way more than 30 questions from 30 Members of Parliament, for almost one hour.
I will suspend the sitting for three minutes so that people can safely leave the Chamber and other Ministers and Members can then enter in a covid-safe fashion.
Ways and Means
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Income Tax (Charge)
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
For the ease of those taking part, all Back-Bench contributions, at least at the beginning of the debate, will be six minutes, but I have absolutely no doubt that that will be reduced later on in the day.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
Yesterday, we saw in black and white the impact of this Government’s mishandling of the coronavirus crisis, right there at the front of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s report: the UK has suffered the worst economic crisis of any major economy. The Chancellor has tried to dismiss that damning fact as a mere accounting quirk, but the OBR was clear: even when all G7 countries are measured in the same way, the UK’s economic crisis has still been the worst.
Perhaps it is understandable why the Chancellor wishes to muddy the waters on this point, because the OBR is scathing in its assessment of the reasons why we have had such a severe crisis, and he has played a leading role. In its words, the primary reason is:
“simply that the UK has experienced higher rates of infection, hospitalisations, and deaths from the virus than other countries.”
The Government were too slow into lockdown not once, but three times. The Labour party urged the Government last autumn to listen to the scientific advice and bring in a short circuit-breaker over half-term to contain the virus, but the Chancellor allegedly overruled the scientists and insisted that a lockdown was not needed. When it came, it was longer and more severe. As the OBR notes:
“The UK has spent longer in stricter lockdowns than other advanced economies”.
The fact is that the Chancellor just does not get it. He thinks that we can separate out the health crisis from the economic crisis and trade one off against the other, but failing to get on top of the public health crisis only makes the impact on jobs and businesses worse. The OBR was clear on that point:
“a greater prevalence of the virus also raises voluntary social distancing which…account for around half of the total decline in economic activity associated with the pandemic.”
It is a damning report card. Coronavirus may have closed large parts of our economy, but this Government crashed it.
Yesterday’s Budget was an opportunity for the Chancellor to make amends, to end the irresponsible decision making that has defined the past year, and to reverse the economic mismanagement that has defined the past 10 years. It should have been a Budget to rebuild the foundations, but it merely papered over the cracks. After the year that we have just had, it should have put the NHS and social care system front and centre, rewarded our key-worker heroes, and set out a plan to strengthen a system too often horribly exposed by the virus. But incredibly, the Chancellor made just a single mention of the NHS and said nothing whatever about social care. Worse still, despite saying that he would be honest with the country about the challenges that we face, he buried a planned cut of £30 billion in resource spending for the Department of Health and Social Care in the fine print of the Red Book.
We know that, when it comes to the pressures on our NHS, this coming year will look different from the last—thank goodness—but it is extraordinary to think that there will be no ongoing costs, either as a result of the pandemic or of the backlog and waiting times that have built up. More than 4.5 million people are currently on the waiting list for treatment—the highest number on record. The Government are burying their heads in the sand, and it will be our NHS staff who feel the pressure from that denial of reality. Those cuts are an appalling reward for workers who have given absolutely everything over the past year to help our country through this crisis. It is hard to think of a greater long-term challenge than that of social care and yet, despite being almost two years on from the Prime Minister saying that he had a plan to fix the crisis in social care once and for all, this Chancellor and this Government had absolutely nothing to say about it.
As for health, so for education: the Government have planned zero additional covid-related spending for schools this coming year. It is extraordinary to believe that there will be no extra costs for our schools as they try to support a generation of schoolchildren who have missed such a chunk of their education.
That sums up this Budget: nothing to say on the biggest issues the country is facing; out of touch with what people are going through right now; and absolutely no plan for what to do next.
Let us take the jobs crisis. The Department for Work and Pensions should be straining every sinew to help get people into work, yet the kickstart programme that the Secretary of State oversees is helping just one in every 100 eligible young people. The restart programme for the long-term unemployed has not even begun and will not be operating at full capacity until this time next year, by which time unemployment is expected to have hit over 2 million. This Budget should have been a moment to get a grip on these failing schemes, to supercharge them so that they were doing everything possible to help those who have lost their jobs, and to give people a genuine jobs promise, as Labour has urged. But what did we get? We got tinkering around the edges with traineeships and apprenticeships, when we know that £330 million of apprenticeship levy funding is still sitting unspent, and a two-year programme to pilot the use of new technologies to help people find work. That is not a plan. That does not come near the scale of the response needed to help the 1.7 million people who were already out of work, or the hundreds of thousands more who risk losing their jobs in the months to come. Can the Secretary of State honestly look me in the eye and say that this amounts to a plan for jobs?
Moreover, where will the new jobs come from? With the hosting of COP26 this year and the eyes of the world upon us, the UK has an enormous opportunity to show how an active Government making smart investments can help us emerge from the economic crisis and meet our net zero ambitions at the same time. Labour has called for £30 billion of investment to be accelerated into the next 18 months to support the creation of 400,000 new green jobs, but, unbelievably, yesterday’s Budget took us backwards. The Government have actually cut half a billion pounds of capital investment from their plans for the coming year, and the green homes grant, the flagship programme of the Chancellor’s summer statement last year, seems to have disappeared from the face of the earth, after more than 75% of its funding was cut and it was found to have been costing jobs.
We needed a plan both to create the jobs of the future and to put in place employment programmes worthy of their name, to help get people into work. We got neither. So instead, the OBR predicts that we are on course to see unemployment rise to 6.5%, with more than 2 million people out of work. What is the Secretary of State choosing to do, just at the moment that the furlough scheme is set to end and joblessness peaks? She is going to cut £20 a week from social security, right when people need it most. She is going to take our out-of-work support back to the lowest level since the 1990s—to cut the lifeline. Is she happy with the Chancellor’s decision to extend the uplift to universal credit by only six months? Does she believe that that is in the best interests of people in this country, both in and out of work, who rely on that money? Is she happy with the decision to give those on working tax credit a lump sum of £500 and then nothing further? I ask, because she has previously said that there were big downsides to a one-off payment, and that previous experience is that,
“a steady sum of money would probably be more beneficial to claimants and customers”.
While we are focusing on the holes that the right hon. Lady’s Government have torn in our safety net, can she explain why her Government have chosen to cut statutory sick pay in real terms next year? It was already at one of the lowest levels in Europe, and her colleague the Health Secretary has already admitted he could not live on it. It has quite clearly acted as a major barrier to people’s self-isolating when required, as the Government tacitly admitted by bringing in a whole new payments system, with its own problems. So why on earth would the Government cut that support back even further in the middle of a pandemic?
Sadly, that is of a piece with the Government’s failure to understand what so many people are going through right now. The cut to universal credit that looms in six months’ time is just one part of a triple hammer blow that the Government are hitting families with this year. They have also frozen the pay of our key workers for everyone earning above £18,000—a real-terms pay cut—and they are forcing councils across the country to hike council tax by up to 5%.
The Labour party is clear on this: this Budget was not the time for tax rises. That view is shared by a range of economic experts, from the International Monetary Fund and the OECD internationally, to the CBI here in the UK. A triple hammer blow of tax rises and pay freezes now and a social security cut later in the year is not only incredibly unfair on families who have gone through so much, but economically illiterate. It means that those families will be forced to tighten their belts, to spend less in small businesses and on their high streets, and the recovery will take longer. Of course, that has all taken place while we have seen waste and mismanagement from the Government on an industrial scale—from £22 billion on a test and trace system that has not worked for months, to procurement rules being suspended, and those who have political connections being 10 times more likely to win contracts than those who have not.
Despite that profligacy for some, there is the prospect of further pain to come for others, with the Chancellor’s decisions yesterday combining with others since the start of the pandemic to mean £14 billion-worth of cuts to planned public service spending starting next year, rising to £16.5 billion after that.
The Chancellor promised “openness” and “honesty” at this Budget. Well, let me ask the Secretary of State for some openness and honesty now. Where are those cuts going to fall? Will they be felt in fewer police officers, fewer further education opportunities for young people, poorer quality social care for the elderly? What action will the Government take to protect people when their income tax personal allowance is frozen next year, especially once the right hon. Lady’s Department has taken away £20 a year from social security, when many of those in the public sector will have seen their pay frozen, when many other people’s wages are continuing to stagnate, and when council tax has, of course, increased? Will her Government be ready to look at this issue again in the next Budget if required? Why are her Government scheduling the freezing of the personal allowance to take place before increases in corporation tax?
People have a right to know what is waiting over the horizon, because it looks an awful lot like what has come before. It looks an awful lot like a return to a failed economic model that saw us end up with 3.6 million people in insecure work, 4 million children living in poverty, and one in four families with less than £100 in savings. That economic model failed even by its own measures. Severe and repeated cuts to our public services did not result in the Government meeting a single one of their legally binding fiscal targets. They did not stop national debt rising and nearly doubling before the pandemic hit.
We cannot go back to that broken model, with its crumbling foundations. The British people will not accept it. That is why the Budget should have been a moment to lay the foundations for the long term, with a relentless focus on supporting new jobs across the entire UK, supporting our high streets to thrive, protecting family finances, and backing our key worker heroes, but here the Government were singularly lacking in ambition. Labour had called on the Government to support the creation of 100,000 new businesses over the next five years, to harness the UK’s entrepreneurial spirit and set us on the path for growth. Instead, we got a so-called super allowance for investment.
We all want to see more investment in this country, not least because the Conservatives took us into this crisis with the lowest level in the whole of the G7, but the fact is that the new allowance is just the necessary consequence of the Conservative party finally acknowledging that its 10-year experiment with slashing corporation tax until we were an international outlier has failed. Two years ago, the Prime Minister said that
“every time corporation tax has been cut in this country it has produced more revenue”.
Yesterday’s Red Book told a more accurate story, predicting that the new rate would bring in £17.2 billion a year by the end of the forecast period. That is a damning indictment of a core tenet of Conservative economic policy making for the last 10 years. The fact is that by moving the rate back up in two years’ time, aligning us with our international peers, as Labour has long called for, the Chancellor has created a cliff edge that might otherwise have prompted firms to delay investment and further damage the recovery. Action to incentivise and protect investment right now is essential; it is not innovative.
The Chancellor’s grand plan for our future recovery had two further planks, of course: the levelling-up fund and freeports. On the first, we have once again seen the Government’s true colours. They have ridden roughshod over the principle of devolution by taking away control from Wales and Scotland to determine how money can best be spent in their nations, and devised a rating system that miraculously sees the Chancellor’s own constituency, and that of the Communities Secretary, placed at the front of the queue for funding. What people right across this country need is investment in their communities, based on local need, guaranteeing local opportunities and jobs and involving local businesses in the supply chain—not largesse handed out at the whim of Conservative Ministers in Whitehall.
Eight freeports do not add up to a grand plan for our economic future. They are not the silver bullet that the Chancellor would like them to be. There is a strong chance that they do not create new economic activity overall, but instead just move it around, which might be good news for those within a freeport area, but could be bad news for those who live nearby and see local economic activity drain away, and with it jobs and opportunities. We risk more regional economic inequality, which has already risen after 10 years of Conservative Government. On the subject of inequality, yet again the Government failed to provide an equality impact assessment alongside the Budget.
The British people deserve better than this. They deserved a Budget to put our country on the road to recovery; a Budget to rebuild the foundations of our economy; a Budget with the NHS and social care at its heart; a Budget that protected the finances of families across the country who have sacrificed so much over the last 12 months; and a Budget with a relentless focus on jobs, getting people back into work and supporting the jobs of the future—not a Budget from a Chancellor without a plan who has learned nothing from the last year, nor the last decade, and who did nothing more than paper over the cracks, with nothing more to offer than the same tired policies that have led to us suffering the worst economic crisis of any major economy.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
It is a pleasure to respond to the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) in this Budget debate. I think it is fair to say that, since the start of the pandemic, our priority as a Government has been to protect the lives and livelihoods of people right across this country. That is why my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, over the last year and again in this Budget, have taken unprecedented steps to support British people and businesses, including help for those who need it most. That includes further measures using our fiscal firepower to revitalise our economy, get people back into existing jobs and encourage investment to help create new jobs.
Let us remind ourselves of the steps we have already taken. Through the furlough scheme, we have supported more than 11 million jobs. This unprecedented cushion of support has helped millions of people to stay connected to their employers who could otherwise have been made redundant. Through the self-employment income support scheme, we have helped more than 2.5 million self-employed workers with grants and business loans, as well as targeted support for those on benefits.
Not everyone was fortunate enough to be furloughed, though, and through the £20 a week increase to universal credit, we ensured that those who faced a drop in earnings or were newly out of work received extra support during this difficult period. I am proud of our swift action at the start of the pandemic and throughout to support an extra 3 million people through universal credit and other benefits. That has been thanks to the hugely dedicated staff of the Department for Work and Pensions, which I consider to be the Department of Wonderful People, who delivered that support competently and compassionately.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will have seen the evidence that disabled people have seen a big increase in their grocery costs during the pandemic, and yet people claiming employment and support allowance have had no extra help at all. Why have they not been supported?
Dr Coffey
As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, and as the Chancellor has said repeatedly, there was a specific reflection at the time of introducing the extra £20 a week uplift to recognise the issues regarding people who were newly unemployed. I am conscious that the right hon. Gentleman’s Select Committee is undertaking an inquiry on people with disability and employment, and we will provide evidence in due course, when we can perhaps discuss that matter further.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I would like to reinforce what my right hon. Friend said about the fantastic work of her departmental officials. The fact that her Department has not been in the headlines much over the last months is due to the efficiency of her officials. When some of those officials are looking for a transfer, might she recommend that they go to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, to try to imbue that department with some efficiency?
Dr Coffey
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting the really good work undertaken by officials. I would also like to thank my ministerial team, because we have worked together to do this. Indeed, arm’s length bodies such as the Health and Safety Executive have also done really good work in trying to ensure that workplaces are safe, helping employers to ensure that that is the case and minimising the transmission of this wretched coronavirus that we have endured. I will bear in mind his thoughts, but I do not think it is in the interests of the DWP to take on the DVLA as well.
Last week, the Prime Minister set out the road map that will lead us out of lockdown and back to the way of life that we are all eager to enjoy. As we all play our part in controlling coronavirus, and after a particularly wretched winter, we are ratcheting up for what I hope will be a spectacular summer. But we know that recovery will not be instantaneous for everyone, which is why the Prime Minister said explicitly that we would not just pull the rug out from under people’s feet as we start to see light at the end of the tunnel. That is why yesterday my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out targeted measures in the Budget that would deliver on that commitment to help people and businesses through these next few months as we open the economy and deliver on our plan for jobs, helping people who are still impacted by coronavirus to get back into work.
First, to support low-income households we will extend the temporary £20 increase to universal credit for a further six months, on a monthly basis, taking it well beyond the end of this national lockdown. Working tax credits are administered by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and claimants will receive a one-off covid support payment of £500—this is largely driven by the way that system works operationally. That is in addition to all the other Government support for people on low incomes, be that support with some of the most expensive bits of the cost of living, through things such as the increase to the local housing allowance, which is going to be preserved in cash terms, or with other elements, such as through council tax support.
Stephen Timms
The Secretary of State said that the universal credit uplift would be extended on a monthly basis. Does that mean that if circumstances warrant it, the uplift will be continued beyond September of this year?
Dr Coffey
The clear intention is that this is an extension of six months, because that will take this well beyond the aspect of the national lockdown. I was particularly making the point about monthly payments because I have always been clear that this is about UC continuing on a monthly, rather than one-off, basis, and that would be the preferred approach. I am pleased that the Chancellor has agreed with me on that and on making sure we keep that regular payment uplift for the next six months.
Secondly, we have self-employed people on UC, and in addition to the further help through our self-employment income support scheme we will suspend the minimum income floor for a further three months. That means that hundreds of thousands of people will continue to receive financial support based on their current actual earnings, rather than on the assumed amounts we would normally undertake through the gainfully self-employed test.
Thirdly, the further extensions of the furlough scheme to the end of September represent a huge investment in people, keeping them connected to their current jobs and employers. I urge employers and employees to take full advantage of this additional time of furlough to get ready to return to work, and do the training and refresher courses, so they are ready to hit the ground running as their business fully reopens. Taken together, I believe that these temporary extensions will provide essential support as we move along the road map, restart the economy and transition to our full recovery.
Thanks partly to the extension of the furlough scheme, the OBR is now expecting a better jobs outlook than it was in its November forecast, with unemployment now expected to peak at 6.5% at the end of this year, instead of 7.5%, which was its previous forecast. Although that represents a third of a million fewer people than the OBR previously forecast, I fully recognise that the OBR is still predicting that, sadly, unemployment will rise by a further half a million people compared with now. As we have always said, we cannot, sadly, save every existing job, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out yesterday extraordinary measures of support to help businesses stay in business and to create new jobs. The supercharged super-deduction on capital investment is exactly the kind of initiative that can stimulate businesses to invest here in Britain, leading to brand new jobs.
I am very conscious of what the hon. Member for Oxford East said, which is why we have undertaken significant work across government on our labour market sector plans in working through the opportunities we can create, not only by resurrecting some businesses and sectors that have been temporarily affected by the lockdowns but to bring in new jobs. I particularly commend initiatives such as the freeports, which we know will be creating tens of thousands of extra jobs right around the country. I was delighted that Freeport East was successful, as it covers the ports of Felixstowe and Harwich, one of which is in my constituency. It was a great pleasure to work with businesses across Essex and Suffolk to make that happen, particularly with the creation of a green hydrogen energy hub. That is really important investment that will be coming now thanks to the freeport initiative, and I know that the same will be happening right across the country. I can see people in this Chamber, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), whose constituents will benefit from her ports coming together to be a freeport.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
Perhaps I could advise the House that this affects not only the ports in my constituency; it is also a partnership with the Ford plant in Dagenham. My right hon. Friend will be aware that there are employment challenges in that borough—it has a very high unemployment rate compared with the rest of London—and the freeport initiative opens up the opportunity for Ford to breathe life back into that site, given the redundant diesel technology that it currently produces. That will attract new investment from a global player. Should that not be welcome?
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I know how much of a champion she has been for the people of Thurrock and the surrounding areas in making sure that they have that opportunity. Indeed, there are opportunities right around the country. We will hear contributions later from Members for the north-east, who will be championing, and are delighted by, not only the freeport in Teesside but the Treasury North campus in Darlington. I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition’s campaign director, who is now in the other place, will also be thrilled that Treasury North will be in Darlington.
Right across the country we are laying the platform for businesses to create jobs, and my Department is ready and primed—indeed, we are already delivering—as we put our foot to the floor, our pedal to the metal, on our plan for jobs. Over this year, as our economy starts to recover, my priority, and that of the Government, is getting people back into work, investing in skills and training, and helping people to get up the career ladder and increase their income.
We came into this pandemic with record high employment. That was down to successive Conservative Governments since 2010 focusing on supporting people in moving to and progressing in work, including by reforming the welfare system through universal credit, which is a conservative benefit. Unlike the legacy benefits, whereby people would often be worse off working under tax credits and similar, universal credit is a benefit that always makes sure that work pays.
I am truly astonished that the Opposition continue to want to scrap universal credit, when it has clearly done its job of getting money into people’s pockets within days of their making a claim when newly unemployed, and remembering that 40% of UC recipients are working and it automatically puts extra money into people’s pockets when their hours are reduced, never mind the £20 uplift for covid.
We know that we have a huge task ahead of us, but I am confident that we will deliver, fuelled by the firepower of our plan for jobs. Just as we have had the jabs army putting vaccines into people’s arms, we now have the jobs army of our work coaches, with an extra 13,500 recruited to bolster our support to help get people back into work.
In the jobs market, sadly it is the hopes and prospects of our young people that have been affected more than most. That is why we launched kickstart, a scheme that helps to give young people that first key step on the jobs ladder and offers employers effectively free access to the next generation of talent, as long as they provide an additional real job and job support.
I am concerned that the hon. Member for Oxford East and the Opposition are giving kickstart a bit of a kicking. Instead of slamming it, they should be supporting it. The Chancellor and I launched kickstart in September, the first young people started their jobs in November, and since then I am pleased to be able to share with the House that around 4,000 young people have now started a job, with 30,000 vacancies to be filled in the next month, and there are more in the pipeline. More than 140,000 jobs have already been approved, with agreed funding, which is more than the 105,000 that the future jobs fund of the last Labour Government created over its entire lifetime—and we have achieved it more quickly.
This is not, however, a tit-for-tat on numbers; this is about real people and helping them with their lives, right here, right now. Take Cerys, for example, who is 19 and had sadly lost her job in catering last year. With the help of her work coach, Cerys has started a kickstart job with Northam Care Trust in North Devon as a care worker. In her own words, this has changed her life. With the ongoing interest from employers and our making it even easier for them to join kickstart with direct applications through DWP, I am confident that by the end of this year, we will have helped a quarter of a million young people become kickstarters, setting them up for a great future.
With kickstart getting into the fast lane, the rest of our plan for jobs is also firing on all cylinders. Recognising that some sectors may continue to struggle, we have doubled the number of places on our sector-based work academy programme—SWAP—scheme to 80,000 this coming year. SWAPs help jobseekers to upskill, retrain and find a route into a new sector with a guaranteed interview for a real job. We are also supporting people in their job searches through our job entry targeted support—JETS—scheme and our job-finding support digital offer, which is now operating across Great Britain, helping those who need only light-touch support.
These schemes are working for people in every constituency. Take Marius from north London. He recently lost his job in the hospitality industry after 15 years and was worried about his future prospects. His local jobcentre referred him to a SWAP, and, after completing just a two-week course to build skills and experience, he was offered a job in the care sector.
This summer, as we restart the economy, businesses will get their restart grants, and we will also restart people’s careers. The new £2.9 billion restart scheme will provide intensive help to over 1 million jobseekers who, sadly, have been out of work for over a year. But we are also helping our jobs army with further assistance by considering new tools to help them diagnose people’s skills and help transform their lives. As part of the Budget, we are investing just over £1 million to pilot the use of new innovative technologies, such as artificial intelligence tools, to match jobseekers’ skills to vacancies they may not otherwise have considered. Work coaches and test sites will start signposting claimants to these services from August.
Also in this Budget, we have brought forward some measures that we know will help people still on low incomes. In particular, we are bringing forward to next month a measure that will allow universal credit claimants who request a new advance to help them with their budgeting to spread the phasing of that support over 24 months rather than 12. That will allow them to retain, on average, £30 more per month up front. We are also bringing forward a reduction in the maximum amount that can be deducted from a claimant’s standard allowance for debts such as rent or utility bills, from 30% to 25%. We expect that that will allow more than 350,000 families with the highest levels of debt to retain up to £300 extra per year.
On top of these measures, we are going further to help some of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable in society. We had already agreed to have exemptions on the shared accommodation rate for care leavers and people who have been in homeless hostels from 2023, but I am pleased to say—this is thanks particularly to the Minister for Welfare Delivery, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), who is here in the Chamber today—that we are bringing forward those exemptions by two and a half years, so that we will provide additional housing support for care leavers up to the age of 25, and for younger claimants who have spent at least three months in a homeless hostel, from next month. That will give them the stability and the foundation to take on the opportunities that work can provide, and will provide, to help them build their future.
We have also added a further £59 million of support for local welfare provision, so that the covid winter grant scheme will be extended into the Easter period, helping the most vulnerable families with the cost of food and bills.
My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will respond to some of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Oxford East, but it is fair to point out to the House that, among public services, we have already allocated an extra £55 billion of support; we have already initiated, or we are preparing for, the catch-up summer for children; and we will continue to invest in our public services. We are already increasing the number of nurses. We are increasing the number of police officers. I think the public pay uplift is for those people with salaries below £24,000, not the figure to which the hon. Lady referred. We are also making sure that the national living wage rises above inflation from next month.
The hon. Lady also pointed out aspects of statutory sick pay. She will be aware that that is the minimum rate required to be paid by employers; many pay a lot more than that. However, in recognising that universal credit supports people on low incomes, the Department of Health and Social Care introduced the self-isolation payment of £500 in order to help people who need to self-isolate and would otherwise be deprived, perhaps, of a lot more of their usual income. That is a sensible approach that we have taken.
It is important to say that, of course, in order to help control coronavirus infections, we had already changed the rules so that workers could receive statutory sick pay from day one rather than the eighth day of being off work, as well as extending it to people who are self-isolating rather than just sick themselves, so we have already taken measures in that regard to help others. In addition, I think it is an estimated £3 billion of extra support that has gone to local authorities next year to help manage the impact of covid-19 across their services and on their income. Of that, half is non-ring-fenced to ensure that they can adjust to what is needed.
The hon. Lady referred to some of the extra support that will be going in to support towns and other places around the country, with the new town deals that are coming, the community ownership fund—which is particularly interesting—to help communities to buy local assets such as pubs and theatres, and opening up as we get ready for the UK shared prosperity fund. We are already setting the scene with the community renewal funds and the levelling-up funds. I think those measures should be welcome.
Let us not pretend otherwise: as we reflect on 2020 as a wretched year when many people have lost family members, lost friends and lost colleagues, there is no doubt that the British spirit has been tested, but the response has been remarkable and, frankly, typical of the Britain I love. Our focus, with the successful vaccine roll-out, should be on giving hope and confidence to millions of families and businesses that there genuinely is light at the end of the tunnel. While the focus has rightly been on the jabs army, we are mobilising our jobs army to help people to get back into work as we speed towards our recovery.
This Budget builds on what is already one of the most generous and comprehensive economic packages in the world to provide further support and protection. We are ratcheting up our support. We will be super-charging skills. We will rebuild, revitalise and regenerate our economy and level up across the country. I am really looking forward on 21 June to toasting the victory of the vaccine over the virus, when we will get back to normal, building back better and building back fairer, with a brighter future for Britain.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I introduce Alison Thewliss, who is joining us remotely, I have some practical notes for those who are also joining remotely. Whatever device you are using, you should have a band at the bottom of it that informs you of the time limit. Currently there is a six-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches from speaker No. 4, who is the person following Alison Thewliss. Just to the side of that, there is a timer. Because the time limit is six minutes, which is a luxury in recent times, please try to resist the temptation to stretch it beyond that, as you will not be allowed to do so. If your speech happens to be in front of the timer, then please use another timing device. For those who are joining us physically, the timer will be shown in the usual manner.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]
It is just under a year since I stood up and made a speech in response to the 2020 Budget in a Chamber packed to the gunnels with MPs. The notion of delivering a Budget speech from my front room was absolutely unthinkable, along with many things we have adapted to over this past year, when we have seen economic shocks as well as personal and social ones. Phrases we rarely, if ever, used before are now in constant use: face coverings, social distancing, extended households, and furlough.
I appreciate that the Government had to move quickly to provide support in a rapidly changing and deadly pandemic. Choices were constrained by the circumstances, and large sums of money were rapidly moved to protect businesses from the worst economic crash any of us, we hope, are likely to see in our lifetimes. There is great hope on the horizon with the advancement of the vaccination scheme, but we cannot tell how long this crisis will last. The Chancellor and the Prime Minister have form in telling the public it will all be over by the summer, then by the autumn, by Christmas and by spring, so we need to caw canny with what lies ahead.
As I have said consistently, arbitrary cut-off dates in the support schemes are deeply unhelpful. The last cut-off for furlough planned for last year resulted in people losing their jobs as employers just could not manage the additional costs. Six months on, the only thing that has changed for businesses is an additional burden of debt and bills, with VAT deferrals coming back online soon. Businesses’ income has not increased, and adding to their employers’ costs is not risk-free. We on the SNP Benches support an extension to the furlough scheme for as long as it is necessary, in all countries of the UK. We also support the extension to the self-employment income support scheme, as announced by the Chancellor, but it does not go nearly far enough, leaving millions of people still locked out of covid support. The cliff edge in the fifth SEISS grant for those above or beneath the 30% drop in turnover seems incredibly unfair and incredibly steep. The Chancellor said yesterday that he will do “whatever it takes” to rescue our economy. He said that a year ago too and it is cold comfort to those who are yet to see a penny piece in support from his Government. The excluded have been mentioned over 1,000 times in Parliament by the gaps in support all-party group and reports from the Treasury Committee and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. Solutions have been offered to this Government and it is unacceptable that the Chancellor continues to ignore these cries for help.
The Chancellor made much of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecasts of a quicker than anticipated recovery, but it struck me that the key considerations of the OBR’s forecasts should not necessarily be the forecasted numbers themselves, but the uncertainty around those numbers. It is that uncertainty that the Chancellor needs to respond to. The OBR has been clear on the unrealistic nature of the Government’s spending plans. The Treasury envisages only a 2% increase in spending after five years. That was already planned pre-pandemic and does not really capture the potential legacy costs of covid for our public services. The UK Government are planning further cuts of £3 billion to departmental budgets on top of the £12 billion cuts announced in November. The OBR describes the Government’s ability to meet those cuts while dealing with the pandemic as
“a significant source of uncertainty”.
I cannot stress enough how much I feel that the Chancellor cutting his way out of the crisis is the wrong way to go. The Chancellor said that once we are on the way to recovery we will need to begin fixing the public finances, but I object to that characterisation of the issue. Public finances are not something that get broken and need to be fixed; they should meet the needs of our population, not the other way around.
All countries around the world have stretched every sinew to save lives in this pandemic. As we see from the US and our European neighbours, the Chancellor ought to use the powers that he has open to him to stimulate growth and provide an investment-led recovery. The Scottish Government have outlined an ambitious five-year infrastructure plan with a particular focus on affordable housing. They are managing to do that even with a 5% cut to their capital budget. The Chancellor had an opportunity to reverse that and refused to do so yesterday. We have called on the Chancellor to provide a £98 billion fiscal stimulus to kickstart this investment-led recovery, with investment focused on creating jobs, boosting incomes and a green recovery. Instead, it looks like the Tories are returning to form and pursuing a contractionary policy against all better judgment. That approach did not help us to recover quickly from the 2008 recession and it certainly will not help us now. The risks of a long-term return to austerity are clear: we face stagnant productivity and years of lost growth. Public services have been cut to the bone. There is no doubt that without the previous 10 years of austerity our public services would have been in a much better position to deal with the impact of the pandemic.
The OBR’s analysis of the Budget explicitly cites
“higher rates of infection, hospitalisations, and deaths”
in the UK as a driver of economy inactivity. Its figures are stark. The UK’s GDP fell 9.9%, the worst in the G7. One in five UK residents contracted coronavirus. One in 150 were hospitalised. One in 550 died—the fourth-highest mortality rate in the world. Under this Government, the pandemic has hit the UK’s economy harder than other major economies and yet the Chancellor continues to underfund our precious NHS, which is expected to return to its pre-covid spending plans after March 2022.
We in the SNP are calling for the Chancellor to look to Scotland for inspiration. The Chancellor should match the Scottish Government’s £500 thank you payments to the NHS. He should prioritise a pay rise for health and care staff, and increase NHS funding to Scottish levels per head, which would deliver an extra £35 billion for the NHS in England and an extra £4 billion for NHS Scotland in Barnett consequentials. We need to shockproof our NHS for the future and make sure that those who have served on the frontline of this pandemic know how much we value their contribution.
Throughout the pandemic, the voluntary sector has been instrumental in ensuring our communities are resilient enough to weather the many emerging challenges, including food security, tackling rough sleeping, combating loneliness, improving digital connectivity or finding safe places for those experiencing domestic abuse. Increasing gift aid temporarily from 20% to 25%, making it easier to claim for small donations, would be a real boost to the sector. I ask the Government to consider that for the upcoming Finance Bill.
A choice has been made in this Budget not to place the burden of the debt on those who can afford it the most. The Treasury said that this is not the time for new fiscal rules, but instead announced the intention to start a consultation at the end of the month. They have kicked the can further down the road. I think the Chancellor has done that for two reasons. First, by doing it outside the Budget process he will avoid the fiscal analysis and proper scrutiny a Budget would face. Secondly, he is giving high earners enough time to shift savings into ISAs or other tax-free schemes. We are already seeing financial advice cropping up on how people can avoid the coming tax hikes.
The Chancellor’s message of fairness rings hollow if he is only buying time to protect himself from scrutiny and to give high earners a head start to hoard their wealth. Instead, we have seen a stealth tax rise for ordinary earners. The personal allowance, after which people start to pay income tax, will rise from £12,500 to £12,570 from 6 April, but will then be frozen until 2026 rather than rising with inflation. That is a tax rise in real terms—the OBR says that it will bring 1.3 million people into the taxation system, with households that earn least the hardest hit.
I want the Chancellor to bring forward measures to tackle child poverty and boost household incomes. As page 14 of the Red Book recognises:
“The economic impact of restrictions has not been felt equally. Staff in the hardest hit, largely consumer-facing sectors, such as hospitality, are more likely to be young, female, from an ethnic minority, and lower paid.”
But the UK Government have done nothing in the Budget to tackle the problem they have identified.
Conditionality in universal credit is forcing people out to work and putting their health at risk unnecessarily. The Government could establish a real—not a pretendy—living wage at the real Living Wage Foundation rate. They could end no recourse to public funds, increase statutory sick pay and match the Scottish child payment throughout the UK. They could ditch the Tory public sector pay freeze and make the £20 uplift to universal credit permanent.
The Chancellor could extend support to those on legacy benefits, including many people who are disabled and carers, who have been completely forgotten by the Tories. He could scrap the benefit cap and remove the two-child limit and the pernicious rape clause, which forces so many families into poverty and increasing numbers of women into making heartbreaking choices like terminating a third pregnancy. What a cruel, wicked Government this is.
As things stand, we face a six-month cut-off date for the uplift to universal credit that will coincide with the end of furlough, the end of mortgage payment holidays and a likely peak in unemployment. The Chancellor has accepted that the uplift is a lifeline for families through the pandemic, so why does he plan to rip it away at the worst possible time? If nothing else, I expected the Chancellor to understand the importance of the social security system as a safety net that allows for a flexible labour market. If he wants people to be able to retrain and equip themselves to face a post-pandemic world, he needs to provide the support to enable that.
We are seeing the Tories shy away from redistributive policies during the worst recession that we are likely to see in our lifetimes. History is reporting itself yet again, as we in Scotland watch with horror a Tory Government that we did not vote for trying again to balance the books on the backs of those who can afford it the least.
It is often the case that the people most affected by austerity policies are women. During the pandemic, women have shouldered the disproportionate burden of caring duties and are more likely to have switched to part-time work, and they are more likely to struggle in the scramble for jobs when things start to open back up again. They are more likely to have already been impacted by the welfare reform before the pandemic began. I had hoped to see some commitment from the Chancellor on the disproportionate economic impact that women have felt over the past year, but there was not even as much as a patronising pat on the head for mums in his speech yesterday.
It is undeniable that our labour market is heavily segregated by gender, and some of the sectors that are dominated by women have been the most affected by covid restrictions. For example, the childcare sector employs mostly women and is vital for ensuring that many more women can go back to work. It has been struck by lockdown restrictions to the extent that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has questioned the sector’s long-term sustainability as demand changes and unemployment increases after the furlough.
The hair and beauty industry is also a large employer of women and is heavily supported by women’s money. I have met staff from salons in my constituency, as have, I am sure, many others in the House. Hundreds of jobs for women are on the line if the Government provide no support. Chopping VAT for the sector, as demanded by the Save Our Salons campaign, would be a real boost to a sector where it is feared that many will not survive this crisis.
My colleagues and I have previously asked the Treasury to look at VAT reductions for specific sectors or economic areas. We have called for and welcomed the VAT cut for hospitality and tourism, and would have preferred the 5% rate cut to last longer so that the sector could really see its benefit. That is particularly true for the music and events sector, which has not been able to sell many tickets this past year.
VAT cuts for repairs to buildings would help to end the scourge of derelict buildings in my constituency and many others, and encourage investment in our built environment rather than demolishing and rebuilding. VAT cuts could also be used to boost investment in energy efficiency measures, thereby contributing to our net zero ambitions.
The Tories long claimed that all sorts of things would be possible after Brexit, but now that we have left the EU, Budgets are coming and going with no regard to those issues. Not only have Scotland’s industries suffered after Brexit, but we are not even seeing the promised targeted tax cuts, which could lead to real benefits in our economy.
I am sure I was not the only one to notice that the Budget made scant mention of Brexit, which will be of little consolation to Scotland’s shellfish industries and the countless others affected by delays to exports and charges applied to imports. The OBR did not miss this, though, and says that
“we now expect the temporary near-term disruption to EU-UK goods trade to reduce GDP by 0.5 per cent in the first quarter of this year. This reflects both that exports appear to have been hit harder than imports and that the trade disruption will affect UK supply chains.”
It does not rule out further disruption either, as well as a long-run loss of productivity of 4%.
The SNP has called on the Chancellor to mitigate some of the damage done by Boris’s botched deal by providing a Brexit compensation package for Scotland in line with the EU’s €1.5 billion for Ireland. Scotland’s community stands to be battered further by some of the impacts of Brexit. We have seen the end of EU structural funding, and the threat of a shared prosperity fund controlled from Whitehall, bypassing our democratically elected Scottish Parliament. There are madcap money-spinning schemes such as the Boris bridge through the Beaufort’s dyke munitions dump, rather than schemes that our communities want and need, with local jobs focused on a green and sustainable recovery.
Scotland’s ambitions to grow our tax base and maintain the long-term funding for public services are massively undermined by the hostile environment for immigration. Brexit and the pandemic have conspired to stop people moving to Scotland. The Tories are actively and brutally cutting migration to satisfy their own arbitrary targets, and Scotland’s economy will suffer for it. I was absolutely furious to hear the Chancellor talk about attracting in highly skilled IT professionals, as outlined on page 62 of the Red Book, because he seems to forget that there are already many people here whom the Home Secretary has tried to deport for the heinous practice of making a legitimate amendment to their tax returns. Highly qualified migrants, many of whom work in IT already and who have made their home here, have been treated abysmally by this Government. Having heard how their friends and relatives have been treated, bankrupted and made to feel like criminals, many will not want to come here. The rule 322(5) scandal is still affecting people today, including my constituents. I urge the Chancellor to listen to organisations such as the Migrants’ Rights Network, and fix this injustice once and for all.
On a whole host of issues, the economic illiteracy of this UK Tory Government knows no bounds. Further polling out this morning shows that 71% of people in Scotland believe that we would fare better outwith the UK, with 53% already backing independence. We face a choice of two futures in Scotland, and I hope that soon we will have the opportunity to take matters into our own hands.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) [V]
I have declared my interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I welcome the extension of help to individuals and companies. All the time people cannot go to work or businesses cannot trade and all the time that there are pandemic regulations and social distancing that impede people going about their normal business, it is vital that the Government offer alternative income and support. I am pleased that the Government came up with a big response originally, and it is necessary to carry it on for as long as these restrictive measures remain in place.
I also welcome the fact that the OBR has decided that we will be borrowing £39 billion less in the current year than in its recent November forecast. I think that serves as a reminder or a warning to all those trying to debate the economy based on a set of figures; these are very uncertain times. It is difficult for the official forecasters to come up with accurate figures, and we should be especially suspicious of ideas based on what the deficit might be in a couple of years’ time. This deficit will fall very rapidly. Assuming the great success of the vaccines continues, and assuming that we can relax and get people back to normal work and normal business within a few weeks or months, we will then see the deficit come down because so much of the deficit has been caused by the special pandemic measures.
The figures confirm that around £250 billion of extra spending in 2020-21 was the direct result of the special pandemic measures, and that there will be another large figure in the first part of 2021-22. We want to see the end of all those special expenditures—because people have better-paid jobs to go back to, businesses are trading successfully, and there is turnover and profit coming back to our small and large businesses—and so much of that expenditure was a poor substitute for being able to do the thing itself. There was of course some loss of tax revenue, and again, we would expect to see tax revenue rise quite rapidly as soon as people can trade properly again, as soon as there are more transactions in the economy, and as soon as we are making more goods and providing more services to each other, as I am sure we will.
So the Chancellor is right to say that the crucial step to getting the economy back to health, the deficit down and the numbers back into shape is to promote a recovery. He is right to want more investment in our economy. The public sector numbers show public sector investment going up, and it is very important that good projects are chosen that will have a good payback. It is very important, too, that the tax incentives are correctly honed so that we get the boost in private sector investment that we want.
The Chancellor is also right not to rush out any new fiscal rules. We will need a new set of rules in due course, however, and they must be geared to a faster growth policy and a policy about levelling up and investing in great projects around the United Kingdom. That must be linked to sensible discipline on public finances and, above all, to keeping the good control of inflation that we have had for a number of years now. It is reassuring that the OBR and the Bank of England are very confident that inflation will remain low, which gives us a bit more flexibility, but we need to watch that inflation situation.
I note that the OBR thinks the balance of payments is going to be weak for two or three years, and that provides an opportunity. In the post-Brexit world there are huge opportunities that we can exploit more easily in import substitution. Why do we not, for example, with our great green policies, plant many more trees and make sure there is much more sustainable husbandry of trees so that we replace many of the timber imports? And while we are about it, can we replace the pelleted timber coming in to produce power at Drax with home-produced sustainable timber?
We should also put in sufficient electricity capacity, because if we want an electrical revolution we will need a lot more capacity, and while we are doing that we should get rid of the imported electricity through the interconnector, which we rely on more and more for no particular reason. We used to be able to have all our own power provided in the UK with a decent margin and I suggest we return to that.
We can do a lot more on food and fish, too. I urge the relevant Ministers and Departments to promote food and fish, and also to make sure that the grant schemes and regulations that are now under our control are used to increase our capacity so that we start to substitute many of the items that are coming in.
A recovery needs more orders and more investment in capacity; it requires excitement over new products and services and the restoration of old products and services. That must be the single thing that most motivates all the relevant Ministries and Government policy, because the only way to get this very big deficit down is to have more revenue and less expenditure, and the only legitimate expenditure to cut is all the spending we have been doing as a poor substitute for a decent economy with well-paid jobs and successful businesses.
So I say, let’s go for growth; let’s do everything we can to promote more things being made and grown and sold within the United Kingdom. There are huge opportunities, and that will be good economics.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) [V]
I expected the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) to complain about the fact that this was a massively tax-raising Budget. I am not sure whether, perhaps in a coded way, he was doing so, but it did reverse policies on income tax thresholds and corporation tax rates that have been central to Tory policy for 10 years.
We all understand the reason why the Chancellor made these announcements, but I must say it was unedifying to watch him yesterday hand out funding on such a brazenly party political basis. However, the real criticism of yesterday, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) spelled out in her opening speech today, is the absence of vision. The Financial Times says this morning that
“the needed long-term vision for a country facing an uncertain future is absent.”
We need much better than that.
I want to focus on points of particular interest to the Select Committee on Work and Pensions. I am relieved that the £20 uplift to universal credit will not be scrapped this month. That should have been announced weeks ago; I have no doubt that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was doing her level best to achieve that, but it should not have been left until yesterday. However, the uplift is going to be scrapped in September. Tax rises are being delayed until next year, because, as the Chancellor recognised, we will not have a proper recovery until then. Why then is the universal credit cut not also being deferred for 12 months, as the Select Committee recommended? A total of £20 a week is to be cut from unemployment benefit in September, just as furlough ends and unemployment reaches its peak. The House of Commons Library tells me that the only precedent for that is the 10% cut in unemployment benefit introduced by the National Government in 1931.
There is no additional support in the Budget for people claiming legacy benefits. The Government should not simply ignore the needs of all those who, because of Government policy, claim benefits relying on outdated computer systems. Disabled people, above all, have lost out. They have seen big cost rises in the pandemic—I hope the Secretary of State, having told the Committee that she had not seen evidence of that, has now seen the clear evidence—through not being able to shop around as normal, but they have had no extra help. That is unforgiveable.
The previous Work and Pensions Committee welcomed the commitment in 2019 to new statistics for measuring poverty based on work by the Social Metrics Commission. That has ground to a halt. The Secretary of State said last month that she has no plans to restart it. Baroness Stroud, the Social Metrics Commission chair, told the Committee that
“we are going into Budgets and Spending Reviews and we are spending £200 billion, but we have no sense at all as to the impact on poverty.”
The Committee has commissioned me to write to the Prime Minister to ask for an assurance that the Government remain committed to this work, and, if they are, for a timetable to restart it.
The DWP is investigating historic underpayments of the state pension to some married women, to widows and to people over 80, which were first highlighted by the former Pensions Minister Steve Webb. The OBR Economic and fiscal outlook report says that
“it will cost around £3 billion over the six years to 2025-26 to address these underpayments, with costs peaking at £0.7 billion”
in the coming financial year. Those are eye-watering numbers, which we look forward to hearing more about.
The Chancellor announced yesterday, as the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) rightly reminded us, a new highly skilled migrants scheme. For that to work, problems faced by existing highly skilled migrants need to be addressed. Many have been left high and dry in the pandemic by the “no recourse to public funds” condition, as research published today by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants points out. As the hon. Lady correctly said, large numbers have been refused visa renewal on spurious grounds of historical tax discrepancies, long since corrected and sorted out. A new scheme will require a welcoming, not a hostile, environment, and that will require a major change at the Home Office.
I welcome bringing forward to April the increase in the period over which universal credit advances will be recovered to 24 months, and the reduction, as the Secretary mentioned, of the maximum rate of deductions to 25% of the standard allowance. The Committee had recommended that that should be done “no later than April”, so I particularly welcome that. We also called for the cap on deductions to be reduced further, to 10%. The minimum income floor for self-employed people claiming universal credit will be suspended for a further three months until the end of July. Where is the evaluation of the minimum income floor first announced in 2018? The Red Book announced investment to tackle “welfare fraud and error.” Fraud and error is at the highest level ever recorded for a DWP benefit with universal credit. It will be very interesting for the Committee to see exactly how that new investment will be spent.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con) [V]
Much has been said in the press about a perception that this Budget would be focused on the north. It may make a predetermined headline work, but it does not reflect the package of measures that will help every corner of our country, including my home county of Devon.
I joined a conference call with local hoteliers in East Devon last night, hosted by the excellent Sidmouth Town Council. The extension of the furlough scheme will help keep staff on the books as the hospitality industry reopens its doors in May with restrictions still in place. Much praise was heaped on the new restart grants, providing up to £18,000 to hospitality businesses. That will give hotels, pubs and restaurants across East Devon a welcome boost before the tourism season kicks in.
When they fling open their doors, the support continues with a suitably Conservative flavour by keeping taxes low to help businesses thrive. The extension of the VAT cut to 5% for hospitality, accommodation and attractions is something I have been calling for over several months, alongside further business rates relief. Both those measures are game changers for an industry hit really hard by the pandemic. I am glad that my calls to extend that support were heard and delivered in this Budget. East Devon’s economy is heavily reliant on hospitality, and the feedback from the industry is positive. I look forward to visiting many businesses across the constituency as they reopen.
While the support for the hospitality industry is nationwide, it will particularly benefit Devon, and the whole county will reap the benefits of several other announcements too. I fought hard to secure support for regional airports after the huge loss of Flybe and the impact of the pandemic. Only one flight landed at Exeter airport in my constituency today, which is not a huge surprise in the circumstances, but the past year has been a bitter blow to the aviation industry. The airport support scheme that I campaigned for will be extended for six months, as work continues on the long-awaited aviation recovery plan. It will take the aviation sector longer than most to recover from the crisis, and taxes, including air passenger duty, need urgent reform to help the industry back on its feet.
On the ground, more than £40 million of funding was included in the Budget to reinstate passenger services on the Exeter to Okehampton railway line. That will encourage more sustainable journeys across Devon and improve connectivity across the county and the city of Exeter, which I am proud to represent.
Another warmly welcomed announcement for Devon was a freeport, which will help to create thousands of jobs across our county. Businesses in Devon will benefit from more generous tax relief, simplified customs procedures and wider Government support, bringing investment, trade and jobs, which will help regenerate our county and our region. Meanwhile, the new future fund presents opportunities for businesses across Devon, including some based at the Exeter science park in my constituency. This £375 million fund will invest in highly innovative companies working in life sciences, quantum computing or clean technology.
The “rabbit out of a hat” Budget bonus was undoubtedly the new super deduction, which will cut companies’ tax bills by 25p for every £1 they invest in new equipment. To put that into perspective, it is worth around £25 billion to UK companies and will kickstart an investment-led recovery—exactly what our country needs.
It is not just our economy that will benefit from this Budget. Devon is home to many veterans, and I am proud to have the Royal Marines commando training centre in Lympstone. Those who risk their lives to protect our nation deserve our support. I was really pleased to see an extra £10 million invested in the Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust, which will deliver projects to support veterans’ mental health.
There is continued extra support for the lowest paid and most vulnerable on universal credit, and the national living wage will rise again in April. We are also helping people back into work with our plan for jobs. Some 140,000 kickstart job placements have been approved in the first six months of the scheme, with many of those in Devon. Whether it is support for sectors hit hard by the pandemic or investment and new opportunities across my home county, this Budget delivers for Devon and our whole nation in exceptionally difficult circumstances.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab) [V]
I speak today as a Member of Parliament representing an area of the country that the Chancellor seems to have forgotten exists. It is not just my constituency that he has forgotten about, or, even worse, chosen to ignore; it is Wearside and Northumberland too. I was particularly anxious, listening to the Chancellor speak yesterday, because I knew that he was going to make an important announcement. The announcement I was hoping for would create over 30,000 new jobs across Tyneside, Northumberland and Wearside and provide a further 31,000 jobs in construction. It would realise £2.7 billion in new regional private sector investment and £2.1 billion in additional UK exports over 10 years. It would drive innovation, boost trade and support our world-leading clean energy, advanced manufacturing and automotive clusters. It would mean that our part of the north-east could achieve its full economic potential through investment, trade and jobs.
As it turns out, it was the final announcement that the Chancellor made in his Budget—the announcement of eight new freeports. I hoped to hear that there would be a north-east of England freeport, but my hopes were dashed. I do congratulate the eight new freeports that the Chancellor listed, particularly the one on Teesside, which has fared very well in the Chancellor’s Budget. Like all areas of the north-east region, Teesside has seen many of its industries disappear and its people have suffered economic and social hardship over many years.
Although the establishment of freeports is somewhat controversial, like many of my north-east colleagues, I knew that the bid submitted for the north-east of England freeport was one that we could commit to supporting as Labour MPs and as a cross-party group. The bid was submitted by a business and public sector partnership that included the seven local and two combined authorities, the north-east local enterprise partnership, the universities, Nissan and the ports of Sunderland and Tyne. I firmly believe that it more than met the Government’s vision for the new freeports.
As if it was not enough to reject that bid, the Chancellor added insult to injury, as he also forgot about our part of the north-east when it came to his announcement on support for the offshore wind industry. It is good to see that Teesside again, and Humberside will get funding, but what about the Tyne? Our Labour council, under the leadership of our Labour elected Mayor, Norma Redfearn, has continuously worked to regenerate our coast and our towns as well as our riverside, with considerable success. Five years ago, the council worked hard to help bring to the Tyne, Smulders’ new facility for the production and assembly of foundations for the offshore wind farm. At its peak, it employed more than 400 highly skilled workers, and the company’s only ask of the Government now is that they help to create a level playing field in that very competitive market.
What news has the Chancellor for our other offshore industries on the Tyne, such as Shepherd Offshore, which at the start of the year bought the former Swan Hunter site to expand its offshore wind business? That is a good news story, when so many of our local businesses have taken a battering during the pandemic and lockdowns.
The Chancellor said:
“Our future…demands a different economic geography.”—[Official Report, 3 March 2021; Vol. 690, c. 260.]
It is clear from his Budget statement that anywhere north of the Tees does not figure in that new economic geography. He may have erased our area from his economic plans, but (Inaudible) I and my north-east parliamentary colleagues will be fighting hard for our corner of the United Kingdom, to get it firmly on that new economic map.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
It is a privilege to be able to participate in this debate on the Budget, which is in a sense rather like an economic Olympics because so many records have been broken. The tax burden in 2025-26 will be 35% of GDP—the highest in over 50 years. The public sector net debt will reach 109.7% of GDP in 2023-24, which will be the highest in 60 years, and we know that the deficit in the current year, at 16.9% of GDP, is the highest in 75 years. As Allister Heath in The Daily Telegraph has reminded us today, it is the first time that there has been an increase in corporation tax since Denis Healey’s “pips squeak” Budget of 1974—47 years ago.
Let us also not forget that the proposed increase from 19 pence in the pound to 25 pence in the pound is an increase of more than 30% in corporation tax. The fact that 65 out of every 100 people questioned like the increase in corporation tax illustrates the extent of the economic illiteracy that sadly abounds. If that is really what the public want, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) would have won the general election with a landslide with his promise of an even larger corporation tax rate of 26 pence in the pound.
The Office for Budget Responsibility believes that the consequence of the changes in corporation tax will be an increase in the cost of capital and reduced business investments, and that that will, in turn, lead to lower productivity and lower wages. The question that I hope the Minister will answer later is why the Chancellor did not listen to people such as Sir Paul Marshall, an extraordinarily successful wealth creator, who sits on the Government’s Industrial Strategy Council. He has argued for a post-Brexit corporation tax strategy that is globally competitive and attracts inward investment. He calls it an aspiration to create a “Dublin-on-Thames”.
That is a reference to the success of Ireland, with its headline corporation tax rate of just 12.5%. Apple, Boston Scientific, Dell, Facebook, Ingersoll Rand, Merck, Oracle and Pfizer are all international companies that have put their headquarters in Ireland or that book their revenues through that country because of the Irish policy of attracting inward investment by having very low levels of corporation tax. Arthur Laffer popularised supply-side economics by drawing diagrams on napkins, one of which I have at home. The Laffer curve suggests that that works. When we had corporation tax at 28% in 2010, it delivered a yield of £43 billion, but when it was reduced to 20% in 2018-19, that yield had risen to as high as £57 billion. That is the supply-side effect—the Laffer curve—operating effectively.
This morning, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was challenged on the radio about why he believes that the dynamic effect of lower taxes no longer applies. I have to say, the Chancellor equivocated in his answers. He said that higher yields from lower taxes are more likely due to cyclical effects. He also said that there had not been the step change in capital investment due to lower corporation tax over the last three years, but he omitted to make any reference to the uncertainty over Brexit.
The Government say that they have to ask the taxpayer to pay to repair the damage caused by the economic car crash of the pandemic, but as everyone ought to know, those seeking compensation for such crashes have a duty to mitigate their loss. My concern is that the Government are not mitigating their loss. Why should taxpayers pick up the cost of accommodating, as the Chancellor put it, the “most cautious approach” to restoring social and economic freedom? UKHospitality estimates that the costs of not reopening to hospitality on 1 April is £9 billion, and that does not include such things as weddings and so on.
My concern, which I hope will be addressed in the Minister’s response to the debate, is this. Allister Heath in The Daily Telegraph today said:
“This was an avoidably bad Budget that will haunt the Tories for years to come.”
The key word is “avoidably”. One way in which we could have avoided this Budget would have been to create the end of the public health emergency and, as a result, restore economic and social freedom. The public health emergency is officially open, but it does not seem to have been recognised yet by the Treasury.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) [V]
As we know, the context of the Budget yesterday was a debilitating global pandemic. It was also the last Budget before the UK hosts the COP26 climate conference. It was therefore arguably the most critical Budget since the second world war. I say “critical” because my friends, my family and my community matter to me, and having a viable future for them and myself matters to me. I saw so many of them struggling before the pandemic because of this Government, and now even more are struggling because of this Government.
What the people of this country needed from the Chancellor’s Budget yesterday was so much more than simply a reaction to the crisis at hand. What the people of this country needed was a strategy that would support all people and businesses struggling amid the pandemic, tackle the rising epidemic of inequality and debt, initiate a massive programme of decarbonisation, invest in local authorities and public services—the backbone of the successful part of the pandemic response—and rebuild our town and city centres as the vibrant hubs of sustainable communities and community activity. By those measures, the Chancellor’s Budget has failed on every single metric.
What I have seen in the pandemic is the best of the British people and the worst of this Conservative Government. In my constituency of Norwich South, I have seen care and compassion in the face of adversity, and I have seen the power of collective action in public services such as our NHS and schools, which stepped up to carry this country through extreme circumstances. In this Conservative Government, I have seen corruption and cronyism as well as indifference to growing inequality and climate change. That is ingrained in the detail of this Budget, which is going to punish the public and our public services, instead of taking the transformative action needed to support the livelihoods of all people and businesses, not just today but for generations to come.
What we needed from the Budget was a massive green economic stimulus on the scale of that in the United States, if not larger. We did not get it. Instead, we got the decision to freeze fossil fuel duty. What we needed was investment in the very public services that have seen us through this pandemic, such as our NHS, which is delivering a world-leading vaccine roll-out, and our schools, which have set up virtual learning under extreme pressure and with their resources cut to the bone. We did not get it. Instead, the Chancellor buried a £30 billion cut to the health and social care budget while local authorities such as Norwich face a collective £10 billion black hole that will mean yet more cuts to vital jobs and services. What we needed was a remedy to the crisis in our privatised and failing social care system. We did not get it. Instead, we got platitudes about needing a cross-party consensus.
The Conservatives have had 10 years to sort this out. We got nothing on our broken social security system, and nothing on statutory sick pay so low that it has helped to fuel this pandemic. A nothing Budget from a nothing Government with nothing of worth to say about the future of this country. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) said in his Budget response:
“That is not levelling up; it is giving up.”—[Official Report, 3 March 2021; Vol. 690, c. 265.]
The Chancellor said he would do “whatever it takes”, so why did he do nothing for those in rent arrears and nothing to deal with the inequality and the 4 million children living in poverty? He paid only lip service to tackling mass youth unemployment. He told the people of this country he was being honest with them, so why did he choose to hide billions of pounds of cuts to our frontline NHS services?
We came into this pandemic with an economy akin to a dilapidated house built on collapsing foundations. Ten years of Conservative austerity have delivered the UK’s worst decade for improvements in living standards in 200 years, and now our house has been hit by an earthquake and turned to rubble with 130,000 dead because the Government failed to invest in resilient foundations. So why on earth does the Chancellor now want to rebuild the same rubbish house on the same shaky foundations? If he wanted to protect the livelihoods of people and businesses in this country and in my city of Norwich, he could and should have made different choices yesterday. It is far better to invest in new design with stronger foundations.
The Chancellor must listen to the public consensus forming on the back of the pandemic, provide support for a universal basic income and universal services and prioritise our health and wellbeing over GDP, with direct intervention to make society fairer. He could have taken the public’s lead yesterday. He could have forgiven the debts of people in rent arrears and students burdened by high interest rates. We got none of that yesterday. Now 130,000 people are dead and the UK has the highest per capita death rate from covid-19 in the world.
This Budget will entrench inequality and it failed to tackle the climate crisis. It will be the job of those of us on this side of the House to remind the public in the years to come that these were the choices of this Government and this Chancellor.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am very keen to ensure that we get everybody in, so after the next speaker I will reduce the time limit to four minutes.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Unlike the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), I think that this was a Budget that put in place the genesis of a strong recovery. It is one that supports people and businesses through the pandemic, and puts the economy in the best possible position to bounce back strongly in the second half of this year. Every vaccination is boosting the chances of a vigorous recovery with strong job creation. I put on record my thanks to everyone who is helping with the blistering pace of vaccination roll-out across the country, and say, “Please, when you’re offered your vaccination, have one right away.”
The Chancellor’s Budget also began the process of repairing our public finances. The Treasury Committee report, which we put out this week, on tax after coronavirus stated that the public finances are on an unsustainable path and even a strong recovery may not be enough to bring current spending back into balance. Every expert we heard from some said that the economy still needs both loose monetary and fiscal policy now, but it is right that the Budget put in place fiscal tightening that comes down the road. It is not right away, but it needs to be there for the year after next.
There are some really innovative measures in the Budget. The super deduction on capital investment is a huge signal to business and should shift the long-standing under-investment by businesses in our economy. The future fund breakthrough will tackle another challenge: the difficulty that small businesses find scaling up capital to go from being a small business to being a big, high-growth businesses. The Help to Grow initiative offers business education, and will help the long-standing challenge in our country of low productivity in the small business sector. The Budget gives the great entrepreneurs and business owners in this country the very best chance to rebound from the lockdown.
We all know that economic forecasts are bound to be wrong, and I hope that the OBR’s forecasts will prove to be far too pessimistic; however, I was also struck by one of the Chancellor’s phrases about the sensitivity of the UK Government debt to interest rates. He said that a 1% increase in rates would add £25 billion to current spending because of the size of the debt. That is a truly startling statistic. It reminded me of a phrase from James Carville, the US political strategist of the 1990s, who said that, when he died, he wanted
“to come back as the bond market”
because it intimidates everyone.
Rates are low today because the Bank of England is buying £895 billion through quantitative easing. The Bank of England is doing that because of the deflationary shock in the economy, but that could change. The Bank is independent. It is possible that the economic rebound leads it to conclude that current rates are too low to keep inflation under control. I am a fiscal conservative above all. A budget deficit is simply a tax increase or a spending cut that we are not prepared to do today, but are prepared to pass on to another generation.
I know I sound a bit like Cassandra, but I worry about the bond market and that it might decide to reprice. I am probably one of the few MPs in this House who traded bonds during the markets of 1994. I assure Members that yields can rise very fast, which is why personally I would have preferred to see a lower budget deficit next year—not the 10% planned and the £234 billion deficit budgeted for. There are measures that could have been implemented, such as freezing income tax allowances immediately, reactivating the fair fuel stabiliser, widening the sugar tax to tackle obesity, adding a small surcharge on online deliveries, and raising the cost of carbon.
All those things would have been practical, and I think we could have brought the public with us. Given the unpredictable character of the bond market, it could have been a prudent decision. It would also have meant that the big cut to the UK aid budget would not be needed. As the Chancellor knows, I personally am ashamed that we are breaking our manifesto pledge to the world’s poorest. I would be interested to hear from the Minister when the vote on this measure is likely to come before the House because, as things stand and given that we have 0.7% in statute, the Government are currently planning to break the law next year, and I am sure they will want to rectify that before long and test the opinion of the House.
I am confident that this Budget puts in place the best conditions for a strong recovery for jobs and the livelihoods of the British people. I add that note of warning that we should not be bouncing back on the backs of the world’s very poorest. As a former bond vigilante myself, I add that further message of caution that the Chancellor may need to take some further tax measures next year if the growth rebound alone is not bringing the current budget deficit down fast enough.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP) [V]
The Chancellor’s Budget is one of missed opportunities. In his speech yesterday, he made no mention of increases for public sector workers who have made such sacrifices and paid such heavy costs to protect us all in this time of crisis. The Chancellor also missed the opportunity to recognise and reward those on the frontline of the pandemic who have given so much. I am referring to the NHS staff and emergency or blue light services who have kept us safe.
I will illustrate the dangers and difficulties with just one example from the police service, but similar examples can be found across the NHS and all of the emergency services. At the peak of the pandemic, one in three police officers in England and Wales reported that they had been threatened by someone they believed had covid who said they would breathe or cough on them. Almost a quarter reported that a member of the public had attempted to do so. The very least that the Chancellor could have done, even as a token gesture on behalf of the public, was to recognise their dedication, professionalism and courage by matching the Scottish Government payment of £500 to NHS workers and extending it to include all emergency workers.
While I welcome the new measures of support for up to 600,000 self-employed people, the Chancellor missed the opportunity to include the 2.4 million people who have been and continue to be excluded from any Government support. I also welcome the provision of £40 million for the care and support of those affected by thalidomide, but the Chancellor missed the opportunity to support families affected by the less well known, but equally damaging drug Primodos, which over a number of decades has caused a range of devastating birth defects in thousands of children, leaving them with serious deformities and disabilities, including missing limbs, cleft palates, brain damage and damage to internal organs. At this point, I take a moment to pay tribute to Mrs Marie Lyon, who has worked tirelessly and led the campaign for justice for those tragically affected by Primodos for more than 40 years.
The Chancellor also missed the opportunity to significantly reduce poverty among older women and to right a significant Government injustice with the plight of the 3.8 million WASPI women—Women Against State Pension Inequality—including 6,800 in my constituency of Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock. They have seen a loss of up to six years of their state pension entitlement without proper notice or time to make alternative arrangements.
On behalf of those women, I ask the Chancellor to consider two issues that would at least help some of those affected by this state-inflicted injustice. The Chancellor should give WASPI women early access to pension credit and give those due to reach state pension age this year early access to their pensions. That would not by any means resolve the issue, but would go some way to redressing the cruel injustice suffered by these women.
In conclusion, the Chancellor has the option to review these missed opportunities and transform them into positive outcomes that recognise the contribution of the NHS and the emergency services during the pandemic and address the lack of support for significant sections of our communities, and I urge him to do so.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab) [V]
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on debt and personal finance, I welcome many of the measures to alleviate people’s income problems during this time. However, the question remains: what happens when the support ends and millions of people potentially face a cliff edge?
Although some people have been able to increase their savings and have paid off debt, poorer households always suffer disproportionately during hard times, and the pandemic has widened that gap. People on lower incomes pay more for essential products—including energy, credit and insurance, to name just three—and are also likely to pay more to access their cash. I will return to that shortly.
I welcome the retention of the £20 weekly uplift to universal credit, but I believe it should be made permanent and extended to legacy benefit payments. The pandemic has raised awareness of the relatively low level of benefits, and it is not just charities and faith groups that believe that the amount should be increased; it is also the general public. There are other issues, including the five-week wait, the two-child limit and the benefit cap, and I also urge that loans be converted to grants, because paying back from an already low income causes great hardship.
The level of the self-isolation payment of statutory sick pay has also caused problems. Many people are unable to afford to self-isolate in order to limit the spread of the coronavirus. They want to do the right thing, but they have to balance that with the cost to their family, and that can prove to be an impossible decision.
I am pleased that the Chancellor has brought in and is going to pilot the no-interest loan scheme. I will follow it with great interest and I hope that it will be implemented as soon as possible. However, there are many people who will have little or no chance of paying any loan in the medium or long term and who are already deeply in a spiral of debt. More research should be done on the effects of this on individuals and families, and on ways in which they could be helped, which may include debt write-offs. These are unprecedented times and we will need unprecedented solutions.
I also believe that private renters have been disproportionately hit. They need a targeted financial package to help them pay off arrears built up during the first lockdown. It would help people stay in their homes and keep away the human and financial cost that evictions would bring.
In his last Budget statement, the Chancellor promised to protect access to cash by introducing legislation. We now hear that he believes that the matter is best dealt with by the Financial Conduct Authority. If I may mix my metaphors, he is both washing his hands of it and kicking it into the long grass. A considerable minority of the public prefer to use cash. It is impossible for them to overspend if they use just the money in their purse. On Monday, we learned that half of Britain’s cash machines could close unless banks are forced to support them. The Chancellor must step in and show the Government’s commitment to cash by forcing the banks to pledge to a five-year deal to allow the Post Office to invest in its banking service and to allow Link to manage its national network.
The pandemic was like an earthquake, disrupting the finances of millions of people. What we now have to do is ensure that it is not followed by a tsunami of debt that will engulf the most vulnerable.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
I think yesterday’s hugely important Budget has been warmly welcomed across the country. Many dozens of constituents have already written to me in support of the measures outlined yesterday. Of course, the difficult backdrop that we have faced over the past year sets the tone. This once-in-a-lifetime event has been incredibly difficult, but with last week’s road map and yesterday’s Budget, underpinned by our world-leading vaccine programme, it is clear that we have a plan to get out of this very difficult situation. We are walking towards normality, but rightly maintaining a cautious eye for obstacles.
Yesterday, we provided certainty for 11,500 of my constituents in Bolsover who are on the furlough scheme, and 2,500 self-employed people know that they will continue to get support as the economy opens up. Crucially—this is incredibly welcome—that has been extended to those people who are newly self-employed. They have struggled so much and I have spoken to so many of them. Individuals were supported by the freeze in fuel duty, which will help massively with the cost of living; there was help for people who want to get on the housing market; and, of course, I warmly welcome the temporary universal credit uplift continuing until we are out of the woods.
More than 600 businesses in my constituency have benefited from the various grants administered on the Government’s behalf by Bolsover District Council and North East Derbyshire District Council. May I take a moment to pay tribute to all the staff at both those councils, who have helped many businesses and helped to roll out these schemes incredibly quickly and efficiently? I have spoken to these staff on a continued basis and found them nothing but helpful.
For the most impacted sectors and those that have struggled so much to trade in the past few months, be they in hospitality, personal care or non-essential retail, there were so many wonderful things in yesterday’s Budget, from the restart grants through to the extension of the VAT cut, business rates holidays extensions and the new recovery loans. For pubs, and probably every single Member of Parliament and person in the country, the freeze in alcohol duty is incredibly warmly welcome—I think we all want to get back to the pub.
The heart and soul of our communities are our entrepreneurs, who put everything into their business and have had such a stressful year. I think in particular of Nikki Clifford, who runs a beauty business in Clowne, in my constituency, and of how she has struggled over the past year and done everything by the book. Yesterday showed that we have got their backs. We are talking about £400 billion of support overall—an unprecedented backing to deal with an unprecedented situation.
Yesterday’s Budget was also, however, about restructuring our economy, laying the groundwork for a higher-skilled, more innovative and greener economy. I massively welcome the super deduction, which will give a turbo-charge to business investment across the country and lead us to a greener future. Locally, we had the great news of the Clay Cross towns deal, which will help many of my constituents, but the biggest and best announcement was on the East Midlands freeport, which is a game changer for our region. That major economic project will create 60,000 direct jobs and new industries, and give a massive shot in the arm for the supply chain and for firms across the region, including in Bolsover. It is a triumph of working together, involving MPs, council leaders, the local enterprise partnership and various private companies. In my final few moments, let me pay tribute to Elizabeth Fagan at D2N2 and Barry Lewis, the leader of Derbyshire County Council for their invaluable leadership on this scheme.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab) [V]
I would like to begin my remarks by welcoming the Chancellor’s announcement that the national infrastructure bank will be based in Leeds. Although that is good news for the Leeds economy, and for jobs in the city and its region, the Government really need to provide clarity on how they will ensure that the bank cannot be used to fund highly polluting projects and that it will fund only renewable-energy based infrastructure that will boost green jobs and ensure it directly addresses the imbalances between the north and the south in that sector. Sadly, yet again, there was no new investment for green recoveries in key industries, including automotive, aerospace and steel. After the mishandling of the pandemic and the economic disaster that accompanied it, a £30 billion green economic recovery fund is now vital in order to create at least 400,000 secure jobs in clean industries.
It is also disappointing that the green homes grant did not feature in the Chancellor’s remarks yesterday. With more than two thirds of homeowners said to be interested in the grant, the Government have squandered the chance to send a message to the world that we are a leading force in the battle against climate change. If they were serious about global Britain, they would start by throwing their weight behind initiatives that lower people’s bills and save the planet at the same time. We have an unprecedented opportunity in this country for a post-covid green revolution, which could generate thousands of jobs across the whole of the United Kingdom, but, once again, this Government have offered more of the same short-term fixes; it is business as usual and it is simply not good enough.
While it is most welcome that the furlough scheme is to be extended, we should not have had to wait for Budget day to give businesses the certainty that they needed months ago. Our bars, pubs and restaurants are particularly dependent on the furlough scheme, and to leave them in this kind of purgatory is unacceptable, as people’s livelihoods are on the line.
Before the pandemic, the night-time economy was the UK’s fifth largest sector. It contributed £66 billion per annum to the economy, equalling 6% of the UK total, and provided 1.3 million jobs alongside a vast supply chain and a number of creative freelancers, sole traders and skilled workers. With no meaningful expansion to eligibility to access the culture recovery fund, and no action on spiralling commercial rent arrears, businesses have made it clear that the loan solutions outlined by the Chancellor simply will not save those hospitality businesses that are already overburdened with debt.
Sadly, many jobs in our hospitality sector will have been lost already, but it is not too late to act. I urge the Chancellor to listen to the needs of the businesses that are the beating heart of the Leeds economy, as well as so many other large cities’ economies.
Following the last decade of cuts to our public services and a crippling lack of investment, the very foundations of our economy have been weakened. Yet again, this Budget does nothing to resolve the concerns of those working in two or even three jobs just to make ends meet, and it does nothing to solve the housing crisis. The pandemic has shown us what happens when we do not properly fund our NHS. We simply cannot afford to make the same mistakes again, whether in social care or housing, or on the climate emergency.
How can we trust this Government on the economy? They spent £22 billion on a test and trace system that did not work for months, £2 billion on outsourced contracts that did not deliver, and £7,000 a day on management consultants. After the past year, the NHS and social care should have been at the very heart of the Budget. There are no plans for jobs, no plans to tackle the climate emergency and no plans for the future. The people of our country have sacrificed so much over the last year. They deserve far better than this wretched Government.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con) [V]
This Budget provides the right balance, reflecting both the need to continue to protect those struggling the most and the recognition that, with the phenomenal success of our vaccination programme, the Government are right to focus on building back better, stronger, fairer and greener.
In Stoke-on-Trent, we have high hopes for the coming year, and last Friday we launched our city prospectus, “Powering up Stoke-on-Trent”. The Potteries has a proud heritage of pots and pits, and a bright future of advanced manufacturing, digital and creative industries, tourism and many other industries that are drawn to our geographical location and agile workforce. However, we cannot ignore the health inequalities that are a challenge to living productive lives and to productivity at work. Our residents have the lowest average life expectancy and poorest health in the region. Stoke-on-Trent is the national litmus test for the Government’s levelling-up agenda, and we believe that new opportunities should be available to all in our community.
Between February and November last year, the number of people on universal credit doubled, so the £20 uplift has been a lifeline for many, and I am glad that the Chancellor has recognised the need to keep it on for the next six months while investing in the comprehensive plan for jobs. Yet the Opposition are still talking about replacing universal credit, a crisis-tested system that is working well, which suggests that the leader of the Labour party is not so very different from the last one—ideology first; what works later. I will always support pro-work benefits and the widest range of measures to address the urgent and immediate challenges during these difficult times.
As brownfield sites across my constituency are repurposed for modern housing and new employment opportunities, confidence and aspiration grow in our local communities. I welcome the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions providing essential pathways out of unemployment and poverty, with both universal credit and the implementation of the Chancellor’s plan for jobs.
In addition to the kickstart scheme and extra work coaches, I welcome the additional investment in apprenticeships and traineeships, the new restart grant scheme, and the lifelong skills guarantee, which will ensure more opportunities for new and higher paid jobs, while the Help to Grow scheme will give small businesses the tools to flourish and create more jobs.
I thank the Chancellor for listening to my plea for support for capacity building in Stoke-on-Trent, with the allocation of £150,000 to help us develop bids for the levelling-up fund. I look forward to this fund unlocking major regeneration proposals in our prospectus, such as the East-West site in the city centre, which provides a mixed-use development including residential, leisure, an arena and a conference centre, as well as a possible tram service connecting the city centre. Our designation as a priority place for the community renewal fund recognises our city’s desire to grow our social infrastructure and empower our community to take ownership of unused or at-risk community assets.
Stoke-on-Trent is a city that is powering up. Before the pandemic hit, our city was on the up, and the pandemic has not stopped our ambitions. This Budget will create the right levels of confidence and the economic recovery that we all wish to see and encourage investment in our cities and regions. Stoke-on-Trent is a bellwether city for the success of levelling up, and my message today is: we are open for business.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) [V]
Yesterday I was fortunate enough to have my first dose of the Oxford vaccine. I had it in a pharmacy that is just yards away from the house where I lived as a child. Davey’s Chemist, one of a number in Merseyside owned by Mary Davey, is at the heart of the community. In fact, I managed to have a quick chat with her after my jab because she happened to be in the pharmacy. The vaccination centre is being run efficiently, effectively, professionally and personably. How she and her staff managed to set it up so quickly and smoothly, I really do not know, but they did. It took hard work, effort, commitment and dedication, and I was impressed but not surprised, because pharmacies get on with it. They were asked to do a job. They said yes and delivered, and despite the stresses and strains on the pharmacy sector, they deliver time after time. So I was disappointed to find that there was not, as far as I can tell, anything in the Budget statement that in any way sent a message of support to the pharmacy sector, let alone any practical or financial support for it. A key sector in the fight against covid through the vaccination programme has been cut adrift, yet the Government still ask a sector that is under strain to pull out all the stops.
As a member of the all-party parliamentary pharmacy group, chaired by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), I want to highlight some of the concerns and recommendations identified in the APPG’s report of December 2020 and the themes brought out in it that are affecting the sector. First, the Government should review the response from pharmacies during the pandemic and re-evaluate a clear vision of what we need from these undervalued frontline healthcare workers.
Secondly, the NHS and Government should enable pharmacists to do more by giving this vital sector additional resources for training and support. Thirdly, a reassessment by finance teams in the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS of the value of pharmacies would be welcome. Fourthly, the Government should write off the advance payments as an immediate way of providing relief. In addition, they should re-evaluate the financial implications of asking pharmacies to pay back the—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am sorry, but we seem to have lost Peter Dowd, so we will go to Gagan Mohindra.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con) [V]
The Treasury team’s ability to be dynamic in a quickly changing environment has saved many people up and down the country, including in my constituency, from financial ruin and job loss. The previously predicted job losses have not materialised, and credit must partly lie with the Government’s unprecedented support. The covid debt burden of £407 billion, with the largest borrowing levels outside wartime, is significant. I would argue that we are fighting and winning a world war against an invisible enemy: the covid-19 pandemic. There may be an argument similarly to use a war bond as a way of financing this significant debt, and I will leave that thought with my Treasury colleagues.
This pandemic has not been fair, and this Government have continued to be pragmatic and target support broadly in the right areas. Support like universal credit has succeeded, and I commend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for its successful implementation, especially with the significant increase in demand during the pandemic. It is a sign of its success that no one has really mentioned it. The scary predictions of job losses at the start of the pandemic have not materialised, but I know my right hon. Friend will continue to focus on getting the 700,000 people who have lost their job through no fault of their own back into work. We must continue to provide the tools to allow our people to get back on their own two feet.
When I spoke to my constituents, they were clear that they wanted two things from yesterday’s Budget, namely certainty and financial prudence. This Budget has done both, with certainty about VAT cuts and the furlough extension, so that businesses are best placed to ride the wave of our recovery. The restart grants and business rates holidays are also well worth mentioning. This does not mean a magic forest of money trees, and the honesty shown by the Chancellor gives all people the respect they deserve by not hiding difficult financial decisions. Outside of business support, I welcome the extension to the stamp duty holiday and the new mortgage guarantee for homebuyers. As a recent first-time buyer myself, I know how life-changing home ownership can be. It is right that we give more people the opportunity to buy if they choose. The proactive policies mean that generation rent will quickly become generation homeowner.
May I take this opportunity to add to the Treasury’s homework? Things I would like the Treasury to look at in future include the wholesale reform of business rates, as this will be critical to ensuring our businesses do not all leave our city centres and high streets and revert to an online-only or virtual presence. That, in my humble view, is not a legacy we would be proud of. Covid-19 has accelerated the change in our working and buying habits. I urge the Chancellor to grasp this opportunity for tax reform to ensure that all businesses have a level playing field.
There are some who have benefited from the new rules and guidance offered during these difficult times, but some have chosen to take advantage instead of doing the right thing. Specifically, I would query why blue-chip and cash-rich companies are delaying payment of commercial rent. It is worth noting that savers up and down the country have a vested interest, as many pension funds are the ultimate landlord. This is not a victimless act and may be a ticking time bomb we should be looking to defuse before it is too late.
I applaud the Chancellor’s approach to supporting wealth creators, as this will accelerate our recovery and ensure sustainability. I thank the Government for being so proactive and reactive to the pandemic.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) [V]
The Budget was an opportunity to repair our economy and provide the support needed by so many. Instead, it is just a sticking plaster that will continue to leave many of my constituents behind.
For example, I represent a large number of enterprising self-employed people working across multiple sectors, but many have been completely excluded from support for nearly a year. While the Budget means the newly self-employed in 2019-20 will no longer be excluded, those changes could have been made months ago to help to protect livelihoods. Meanwhile, those who previously earned more than £50,000 a year or who operate through limited companies remain completely excluded from support. When I asked the Chancellor in November, ahead of the second lockdown, what he would be doing to fix those gaps in support, he made it clear it was a deliberate policy decision to exclude them, which, frankly, is shocking. The cliff edge of £50,000, rather than a tapered approach, has caused considerable issues in constituencies like mine. One of my constituents, a talented musician who earned over £50,000 before the pandemic, told me: “Raising a young family of four in London as the main earner when work stopped in March caught us in a very compromised position. Now, a year later, we are deep in £30,000-worth of debt. In January, I paid over £14,000 for my tax bill despite receiving no money from the self-employed income support scheme, which, had I not been excluded, would have alleviated a level of anxiety and stress I did not realise was possible. As the months tick by, we become increasingly desperate and I have had to sell a number of my instruments.”
Meanwhile, another constituent of mine has received no support because she is a limited company director. She now faces having to wind up her successful business of eight years amidst the demands of home schooling and caring for her elderly, shielding mother. These are real-life issues affecting my constituents and the Budget does nothing to help and support them. It is clear that the Chancellor’s decision to exclude certain people is having a huge and lasting impact on families. The Government should be fixing this rather than ignoring the matter.
I also represent a large number of independent businesses. Sadly, support to date has not been enough to see many of them through the crisis. The much-loved Alexandra pub in Penge is a brilliant, independent community pub that is a very special place to many, myself included. It is reduced to having to crowdfund, otherwise it faces permanent closure. The news of restart grants is welcome, but for many viable businesses this has come too late in the day, and for others, they may not be able to wait until April to apply for the grant.
We needed an ambitious Budget that sought to support all those who have fallen through the cracks and to rebuild the foundations of our economy for the long-term. Instead, we have a Budget that continues to exclude many from support and only offers a return to the same insecure economy that allowed this virus to cause so much damage in the first place.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con) [V]
Yesterday’s Budget came at a critical time for our country. The Chancellor placed a strong emphasis on jobs and livelihoods, announcing schemes and programmes to help people get back into work. Simultaneously, the Budget focused on keeping businesses alive, with a forward view of getting them working again, introducing restart grants—something that I had previously raised with the Chancellor—providing additional discretionary funding to ensure that businesses have the vital capital needed to kickstart operations, as well as further funding to support their employees until they are back at work.
I have previously discussed social mobility and the issue of people staying in low-paid employment in my constituency with the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies) who shared with me the ABC concept of improving social mobility: any job, better job, career. To that end, we are using advanced town deal Government funding to establish a careers and skills hub with Loughborough College, which will be the vessel for skills, courses and training, delivering apprenticeships, traineeships, kickstart, and the lifetime skills guarantee. Working with work coaches and youth workers from Jobcentre Plus and the Department of Wonderful People, of course, it will help local young people looking for their first employment help and the unemployed of any age, giving them the ability to get back into work. It will also help the already employed who are looking to upskill or reskill, so that they can advance in their careers. My own life skills project, working with Barclays, Communities that Work and East Midlands Housing, will support the unemployed and low earners in work to gain additional skills locally, feeding local people into the hub.
The careers and skills hub will run alongside the Government-funded T-level centre at Loughborough College, which will also help to provide local residents with the skills needed by local businesses, leading to better-paid jobs. In addition, we hope to gain funding for an institute of technology shortly as well as to secure the £25 million of town deal funding to provide the infrastructure for businesses, jobs and growth in the town. This is a shining example of local organisations and experts capitalising on a matrix of support from the Government, creating a foundation for skills and enterprise and increasing social mobility at a local level.
Speaking of job creation and growth, I was delighted by the announcement yesterday that our bid for a freeport at East Midlands Airport was successful. This will create a centre for business and promote jobs and growth not only at the site itself, which is easily accessible to my constituents, but in local business clusters in my constituency, such as the science and life science businesses at Charnwood Campus and the Science and Enterprise Park. What a massive opportunity for the whole region and, importantly, what great news for Loughborough.
I call on businesses thinking of expanding or even starting up to please consider coming to Loughborough. Not only is it a fantastic place in which to live and work but it has the infrastructure and highly skilled workers that they need to succeed.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Over the past year, more people than ever before will have come into contact with our social security system. In March 2020, around 3 million people were on universal credit; in January, it was 6 million. They will have discovered that what is billed as society’s safety net is, in fact, full of fairly large holes. That has been the experience of my constituents in North East Fife, and it will be the same for hundreds of thousands of people throughout the UK.
A year ago, Liberal Democrats welcomed the Chancellor’s move to help to fix the net via the £20-a-week uplift in universal credit—that money was needed even before the pandemic began—but as time went on, it became clear that further support was not going to come. We called for an uplift to legacy benefits, which are disproportionately received by people with disabilities, but after initially being told that the universal credit uplift was a first step because its computer system was easier to change than the systems operating legacy benefits, it turned out that no uplift would be forthcoming.
We asked for extra support for unpaid carers—a group of people who are under-appreciated, overworked and absolutely need our further support—yet rather than the £20 a week that they need at the very least, the increase the Chancellor is giving in the Budget is a derisory 5p a day.
The decision to create another cliff edge by ending the universal credit uplift in six months means taking away £1,000 a year from those who need it the most. Freezing the personal allowance is a stealth tax that simply means that the poorest will pay an increasing proportion of their income in tax as many begin to make the transition from universal credit to employment as the economy recovers.
Last week, my team and I undertook a virtual visit to the jobcentre in Cupar. It was great to meet the fantastic team there, who have coped brilliantly with the required changes to working practices and are clearly making a difference to many who access their support. Despite that North East Fife team’s efforts, I have real concerns about how the Government plan to get people back into work.
Take-up of the kickstart scheme has so far been sluggish. To some extent, that is understandable, given the current restrictions, but when the scheme was launched I asked the Government to reconsider the requirement for businesses to be able to participate directly only if they had 30-plus vacancies, and although I am pleased that they eventually changed that decision, the initial decision prevented businesses in my constituency from moving forward more quickly with the scheme. The pandemic has hit the job prospects of those aged 18 to 24 most heavily; kickstart needs to succeed.
Tourism and hospitality are two key sectors in North East Fife, and I have previously raised in this place many examples of small businesses that are struggling because of covid-19 and lack of support. I welcome the continued 5% VAT rate for hospitality, which many Members from all parties called for, along with the furlough extension, but the reality is that the Budget offers very little for the cafés, shops and sports clubs at the heart of the local economy. Hairdressers such as Alex Thaddeus in Cupar also need a VAT reduction, which the hair and beauty industry has called for. The data tells us that women are also paying a disproportionate economic price during the pandemic.
The furlough extension is useful, but when I have spoken to businesses such as the Ship Inn and the Dory in the East Neuk, they tell me that it now comes with costs—it is not the same scheme that it was a year ago. That means that the small business owners who are currently unable to open face painful choices—accruing more debt, laying off staff or, indeed, closing altogether.
Many Members have raised the self-employed. I can think of many constituents who have found themselves excluded. Beneath the Chancellor’s rhetoric, there is no real change to the self-employment support; it is just that more people qualify now because they have 2019-20 tax returns.
Some of the Scottish Government’s support schemes are problematic. There are Barnett consequentials sitting on the desk of the Cabinet Secretary for Finance right now, and in Scotland we have been in harder lockdown for most of the past year. Just this morning, I spoke to my team regarding bed-and-breakfasts such as Lillian May in Newport-on-Tay, which is still waiting—and has been since December—for Fife Council to get further guidance from the Scottish Government on the administration of funding for bed and breakfasts.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con) [V]
Over the past year we have seen state intervention on a scale not dreamed possible by a Conservative Government. However, this perfectly reflects our approach. Our core belief is that the state should intervene only when necessary, and it has certainly been necessary this year. The state should help when help is needed, but otherwise it should not interfere and should let people get on with their lives.
Economically speaking, the only way for us to grow and build back better is for our private sector businesses to pull the economy back to health, creating jobs and wealth for all. I therefore welcome the six-month extension to the universal credit uplift, the extended furlough scheme, the self-employment extensions and the inclusion of the newly self-employed. The super-deduction on investment in plant and machinery will rocket-boost capital spending and make inroads into the productivity conundrum. If I had a request, it would be to extend it to other businesses, such as farmers. I particularly like the support for our hard-hit hospitality and leisure businesses, and to do all this while supporting a green industrial revolution is just amazing.
As our smaller businesses are the real engine, I also commend the Help to Grow scheme and digital skills support, which will deliver opportunities for better growth. All our lives have changed dramatically over the past year, some financially or emotionally; some will revert as the lockdown eases, but some will take many years to recover—if, indeed, they ever do.
The support offered comes in many guises. The short-term financial support I have already touched on, but livelihoods are about more than that; they are about a belief in a better future, about believing that society is fair, and I see key levers for that. The restart programme, the kickstart scheme, the Prime Minister’s lifetime skills guarantee, the £3,000 incentive for all hires and £126 million to triple the number of traineeships are all building blocks that give people a hand-up and the opportunity to grow or retrain.
Members representing constituencies such as mine in Sedgefield were elected on a promise of levelling up well before covid-19 arrived, and to do so requires Government intervention to create the stimulus for change. A key part of that is opportunity. Decisions like a freeport for Teesside and funding for new port infrastructure to build offshore wind projects are transformational for the Tees valley, and I hope that the Chancellor and his colleague the Transport Secretary will continue to recognise the importance of local infrastructure to support access to the jobs created and educational opportunities. Ferryhill station, the Leamside line and the Dar-link northern bypass are critical for the people and businesses of Sedgefield to share in this opportunity.
I welcome the opening of the levelling-up fund and look forward to utilising that for the benefit of the people of Sedgefield. When it comes to levelling up and supporting left-behind communities, I could not be further from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments yesterday. In my maiden speech, my suggestion that the Treasury could relocate to Sedgefield was met with some humour. But for those who do not know, the Sedgefield constituency wraps around Darlington town, with the long-held Conservative wards of Hurworth, Sadberge and Heighington and Coniscliffe, so that is close enough for me. I have been delighted to campaign for that with my Conservative colleagues along the Tees valley, in particular the Tees Valley Mayor, Ben Houchen, who has been indefatigable.
This is a transformative step for Sedgefield; it delivers opportunities for careers that were previously only found in London. It is important to have decision makers based outside of cities. For the Labour leader to say yesterday that moving those Departments from his London-focused world to Darlington was “giving up” was an insult to the people of our area. I look forward to the local Labour politicians in Durham, Darlington and the Tees valley distancing themselves from those comments—or maybe they will toe the party line and wait for the electorate to speak for them. I await May with interest.
It is clearly only the Conservative party, through this Prime Minister and this northern Chancellor, who care about and will deliver for the north-east.
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)
Listening to the Chancellor yesterday, I was surprised by the tone that he took. He seems to have forgotten that his Government’s shambolic handling of the covid pandemic has seen the UK suffer both the worst death toll in Europe and the worst economic crisis of any major economy. As we move towards recovery, I share the concerns of many of my constituents, who feel that the confused policy making of the last year means that this is not a Government who can be trusted to deliver the recovery that the UK needs.
Following the financial crisis, the Tories responded with austerity. Labour warned against cutting too far and too fast, and we ended up with soaring rates of poverty, threadbare health and social care services and one of the most unequal economies in the western world—a situation that no doubt exacerbated the impact of the covid pandemic. Now the Government’s failure to recognise the role that poverty and inequality play in holding our nation back means that they are once again risking the economy. In particular, it is noteworthy that, despite countless charitable organisations arguing that the £20 universal credit top-up should be made permanent, the Chancellor could commit to it for only a further six months. Indeed, there are almost 16,000 individuals in Coventry North East who could do with that extra £20 per week, yet this Government seem determined to find a way to take it off them. The Chancellor has said that the increase is only temporary and that it is unaffordable in the longer term. Yet we only have to look at how easily and freely they hand out Government contracts to their friends and close associates to see that when it comes to the question of affordability, it helps to be a personal friend of a Minister. Sadly, for the 16,000 recipients of universal credit in Coventry North East, this means that this much needed increase may soon be ripped away from them. With many of those people already on furlough or in insecure work, there is a real danger that when this is taken away from them, they will become even more dependent on the state for support, which is not what anybody wants.
A society that is built on shaky foundations will not be able to tackle the challenges this country faces, nor take advantage of the opportunities we are presented with. The Government’s plan for the post-pandemic recovery does nothing to tackle the poverty and inequality that resulted in the worst death toll in Europe and the worst economic crisis of any major economy. We all want a strong and resilient country, but unless the Government start to take these issues seriously, they will once again leave us vulnerable to the future challenges we will inevitably face.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in the second day of the Budget debate.
This Budget has one overriding aim—to kick-start our economy, which shrank by 10% last year. We are now set to borrow a peacetime record of £355 billion this year. This is jaw-dropping, I agree, as is the fact that 700,000 people have lost their jobs since the pandemic started. The Government’s primary duty is to do what they can to help the people and our economy. On the face of it, such huge borrowing does not look Conservative in any way, but it is. What is proposed by the Chancellor is pragmatic, sensible and bold. He has accepted the reality of the situation and has taken realistic action to remedy the problem. Needs must, and such action is crucial now. This is a very Conservative approach. Such pragmatism is why the Conservative party has been the most successful political party in history. Conservatives are not ideologically driven to the extent that they do not adapt to a situation that requires change, and that is certainly the case at the moment.
Now is not the right time to hammer the economy or the people, who are already on their knees. Today is the time to succour and support our recovery after the traumas we have had to sustain over the past year or so. That is our top priority. Luckily, borrowing is at its cheapest rate ever, and we should use that situation as a tool to help us in the recovery. I totally support this rather canny Budget. I agree with the Government that they are determined to do their best for everyone in the country—everyone, whether in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales or England.
Let me turn to a few matters coming directly from the Budget that I am very pleased to mention. I like the fact that the furlough scheme has been extended to September. I am also delighted that the benefits for the self-employed have been extended. I am particularly happy that about 600,000 more people who are self-employed will be able to claim assistance. This has been a matter of great concern in my constituency, where a large number of people determine their living very much on their individual wits and hard work. Some of them have had a really hard time. Far too many of my constituents have fallen through the gaps in the support that has been extended to date. Lots of them have been unable to demonstrate, in particular, that they were self-employed on their tax returns, and I hope this anomaly has now been resolved. It is also good news that the £20 uplift in universal credit, worth £1,000 a year, has been extended. It saddens me, though, that the Budget does not seem to help leaseholders with the remedial costs of cladding. I reckon the Government are going to do something about that in due course, but it is not part of the Budget; in a way I wish it was.
In truth, I consider this to be a very professional, necessary Budget in these extraordinary times, and I am delighted to say I fully support it.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. Pandemics by their very nature offer an opportunity for reflection about the sort of society we want to develop for the future. If the aftermath of this dreadful pandemic is not an opportunity for a reset, when will there ever be one? It is not as if the structural or economic deficiencies of the British state are not obvious to all, with chronic geographical, sectoral and individual wealth polarisation and an over-reliance on one economic sector.
I welcome the Chancellor’s commitment to underpinning public health strategies with economic support, and extending furlough to September seems sensible. However, if for whatever reason the Welsh Government are required to implement a different strategy to control the virus—for instance, as the result of a new autumn wave—will measures such as furlough be extended, or does the unionist talk about the broad shoulders of the British state only apply to Wales if it also benefits England?
On corporation tax, I support the proposed increase to 25%. The Washington-based thinktank the Tax Foundation estimates that the global average corporation tax rate is just over 25%. France and Germany have rates of 30%, and the Biden Administration have announced plans to increase the rate in the US from 21% to 28%. Therefore, it is difficult to make the case that a 25% rate in the UK would be uncompetitive. Of Biden’s three-year $1.4 trillion extra taxation plan, according to Moody’s Analytics, well over half—$822 billion—comes from corporate taxation. Equally important is the Biden Administration’s determination to target firms that offshore jobs and those that shift profits overseas.
The Chancellor’s income tax proposals are far too timid. He should have followed the new US Administration by increasing income tax directly on incomes above $400,000—about £300,000—by introducing a new pandemic tax band. However, the redistributive zeal required to tackle the UK’s inequalities should also look at taxation on held personal wealth, as is the case in Norway, Switzerland, and Spain.
I hope the Treasury’s tax day on 23 March will signal a full-scale review of how wealth in the UK can be taxed more fairly and justly in the long term. It will also be an opportunity to finally introduce much needed reforms of capital gains tax and to investigate the possibility of varying corporation tax within the UK. This would be one way to help redirect investment to those less productive parts of the British state. Considering that only three of the UK’s regions and nations are in surplus, this might be one way to address the geographical wealth disparities that exist in a far more coherent manner, I suspect, than sporadic freeports.
It is also imperative that the UK find an answer to the question of how to tax the digital world. I appreciate that the G7 will be a key forum to discuss a global digital tax regime, and I welcome the tentative first steps taken by the UK Government with the introduction of the digital services tax. However, now is time for the UK to go further and faster, leading by example and setting global standards. This is crucial, given the pandemic-induced shift to online retail, with online sales accounting for a record 35% of total retail spending in January 2021, up from 20% in February 2020.
The political choice facing electors as we emerge from this pandemic is between the forces that want to return to the old normal and those that believe the pandemic must result in the creation of a new economy that works for all, not just for the select few. The Chancellor nailed his colours to the mast in the Budget as the former. I will be arguing forcefully for the latter as a key part of a prospectus for an independent Wales.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab) [V]
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] Gosh, I am really sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker; we have building work going on in the house at the moment.
The pandemic has shown us the impact of a decade of austerity forced on us by Conservative Governments. We have seen that a cocktail of poverty pay, job insecurity and cutting public services to the bone has resulted in one of the worst death rates and the worst recessions in the world. This was not inevitable and the Budget was the Chancellor’s opportunity to put it right with a programme that meets the scale of the challenges we face. Instead, this Budget is filled with half-measures and wrong priorities.
There is a rise in corporation tax in 2024 but a huge £25 billion giveaway to big businesses before that. The wealth of British billionaires has already soared by a third in the last year. The Government talk of a green industrial revolution but they are slashing green homes grants, freezing fossil fuel duty and continuing to back coal mining. There is a lot of talk about looking after Brits, but the Chancellor did not mention the NHS once in his speech. He had no plan for the crisis in social care and he is freezing public sector wages instead of giving our key workers the pay rise that they deserve.
The Chancellor has taken the rhetoric of Labour’s policies but none of the substance. The centrepiece of yesterday’s Budget was the switch to fiscal austerity in April 2023, which will involve around £68 billion of spending cuts and tax rises until 2026. Make no mistake, this Budget has paved the way for more misery, more austerity and more hardship just over the horizon.
Today, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Resolution Foundation said that the cliff-edge cut in universal credit will bring down incomes to levels that we have not seen since the early 1990s. It is set to plunge 500,000 people into poverty. Does the Minister consider those people, including many of my constituents in Nottingham East, to be collateral damage?
We all want a secure job, healthcare we can rely on and a good home in a community that we can be proud of, but poverty pay, underfunded hospitals and catastrophic climate change threaten our lives and our futures. This Budget should have tackled the root of these problems—our rigged economic system—but instead, it rearranges the deckchairs on the Titanic. We need a permanent transfer of wealth and power from billionaires profiting from the pandemic to workers who have got us through it, but this Government do not want to tackle a broken economy that works for their super-rich friends instead of for my constituents. They have failed catastrophically during the pandemic and this Budget shows that they will fail to deliver the recovery that we need.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome). The Budget obviously has to be set against the situation in which we found ourselves in recovering from the pandemic, and the Chancellor and his team are to be congratulated on ensuring that we have balanced the position between encouraging industry and commerce to reopen but, at the same time, supporting people who are going through the pandemic in a difficult fashion. I strongly support all the measures that the Chancellor announced in the Budget.
There are four areas, however, that need to be explored yet further. On the position on remediating cladding, when the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government announced the new scheme for dealing with high-rise blocks, it was said at the same time that the loan scheme would be announced by the Chancellor during the Budget process. At the moment, we have not heard that, and clearly, a large number of leaseholders will want to know the details. Personally, I take the strong view that leaseholders should not have to contribute a penny and I reserve my position on where we stand until we hear the details of the loan scheme. So, clearly, that is a matter of concern.
The estimate of the number of private tenants in rent arrears has soared during the pandemic and, clearly, a day of reckoning is coming. It is not clear what the Government’s strategy will be to ensure that those rent arrears are cleared to the benefit of either tenants or, indeed, landlords who depend on that income for their ability to finance themselves. That needs further explanation, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be able to answer that during the wind-up to the debate.
Another vital issue is pensions. The Chancellor has chosen to freeze the lifetime allowance. There are concerns in a number of professions, including our medical professions. Doctors are saying that they have saved all the money that they can under the lifetime arrangements, so there is no incentive for them to continue working. That is a potential loss of skills that we can ill afford, particularly at a time when we are approaching a need for more doctors, nurses and medical professionals in our national health service.
Equally, of course, I am disappointed that the Chancellor has not announced any more funding to compensate the victims of the Equitable Life scandal. The reality is that those individuals saved for their retirement and intended to ensure that they had a decent income. They have been short-changed, I am afraid, as a result of the compensation scheme by the Government thus far. I look forward to the Chancellor coming forward with further funding. At the moment, £2.6 billion is owed. It is quite clear that the Chancellor has been able to find funding when it is necessary. These people are among the most vulnerable in our society and deserve our backing and support.
Equally challenging, I think, is the fact that our economy and savings regime have been shown to be extremely fragile. The pandemic has revealed that many people do not have money saved up to support themselves through difficult times. In future Budgets, I hope the Chancellor will bring forward incentives for people to save, not only for a rainy day but for their retirement and when they will need it next. In summary I strongly applaud what he and his team have been able to do to get us out of the pandemic, get employment back and get the economy working once again.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The Budget should be judged on one key issue: whether it improves the living standards of the vast majority of people in this country. On that, I am afraid, it has failed, with a pay freeze for key workers, the poorest families facing universal credit cuts, 1 million lower-paid workers having to now pay income tax, and council tax rises. Living standards have faced an assault over the past decade, and that is set to continue. Average wages will be no higher in 2026 than in 2008: almost two lost decades.
The Government’s disastrous handling of the virus has caused one of the world’s deepest economic collapses, yet they expect the vast majority to pay for it—including through further cuts to public services of £15 billion per year compared with last year’s plans. Despite the need to treat a huge backlog and to fund ongoing vaccine and test and trace schemes, the Government would also cut the national health service budget back to pre-pandemic levels. That will also mean an axe to unprotected areas, such as local government, which is already cut to the bone.
The Government may counter that they are fixing the economy and that a higher tide will lift all boats. That is simply a lie. The Budget will see Britain continuing as a low-growth—just 1.7%—economy once the end-of-lockdown boost wears off. We have low growth, falling living standards and hollowed-out public services. For most people, I am afraid that it will feel very similar to the last decade, but it does not have to be. This should have been the Budget to invest massively in growth, in tackling inequality, in jobs, in tackling the climate crisis, in rebuilding our public services, in social housing and in moving us to a high-skill, high-wage economy.
Instead, public investment will remain pathetically low, and the main stimulus is a £25 billion corporate handout that may bring business investment forward but, as the Government’s figures show, will not increase overall investment levels. Those funds should instead have gone into a huge state investment programme also funded by record low borrowing costs and taxes on the super-rich, starting with a 50% rate on those on over £125,000. That could spur a shift to net-zero with a green new deal, build modern transport and infrastructure fit for the 21st century, lead to a mass house building programme, and renew our public services, all boosting growth, which is the best way to pay off the debt, but also creating decent jobs and helping to rebuild communities left behind for far, far too long.
That should have been the legacy coming out of this crisis, and that is what we on this side of the House will need to fight for.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call Jerome Mayhew by video link.
I am afraid I am going to have to stop Jerome Mayhew and come back to him.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
There is much to welcome in the Chancellor’s Budget. The extension of the furlough scheme, the business rates holiday, his long overdue new support for the self-employed, and the £300 million for the culture recovery fund are a step in the right direction. These measures will help some of my constituents get through the next few months of this crisis, but what about the longer term? I wanted to see a Budget that puts us firmly on the road to recovery and rights the wrongs of the last decade by rebuilding our economic foundations, but this Budget just papers over the cracks with short-term giveaways.
There was no pay rise for the key workers who have cared for us through this pandemic, including the hard-working staff at St Thomas’ Hospital in my constituency, who cared so diligently for the Prime Minister when he was ill; no recovery plan for our NHS after a decade of cuts; no mention of schools or teachers, who have worked tirelessly to educate our children in such challenging circumstances; and no mention of help for the thousands of leaseholders paying extortionate costs for temporary safety measures while still living in unsafe buildings.
The Chancellor assumes that household spending will help fuel growth, but not everyone has managed to save through this pandemic. In September, unemployment will rise when furlough ends, and without the £20 uplift to universal credit the poorest households in my constituency in Vauxhall will be facing a significant fall in income in the second half of this year.
This Budget was full of missed opportunities. The pandemic has exposed structural vulnerabilities and inequalities, and this Budget was an opportunity to reflect on how our economy works, what we value most and what our priorities should be as we start to recover from this nightmare. The Chancellor missed an opportunity to help the co-operative movement in leading a recovery to a fairer and more inclusive economy. He should have shown real ambition by committing to double the size of the co-operative sector to help build a fairer and more resilient community.
This Budget offers none of the ambitions, values or vision that my constituents in Vauxhall had hoped for and needed to see, and it fails to answer some of the bigger questions about protecting household incomes and coping with the squeeze on our public services. The Chancellor had an opportunity to push the reset button with this Budget; he must explain why he did not take it.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
It was a real pity that the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) was cut off in his prime earlier as he was embarking on a very good defence of our pharmacy sector and its contribution, and I want to associate myself with his comments. There is a real issue with regard to the moneys advanced to pharmacies to deal with the consequences of the pandemic; it now needs to be clawed back and that is going to hit our pharmacists, who have been at the front end of the fight against the pandemic. I just remind Ministers to get together with the NHS to come up with a solution to this. Notwithstanding the fact that pharmacists are independent providers, they are very much part of our NHS and should be treated as part of the NHS family. I hope that the House will indulge me in finishing the hon. Gentleman’s speech off for him.
I commend the Treasury team and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for the Budget presented yesterday. It has to be said that they were not dealt the best set of cards to start with. As Conservatives, we know that everything has to be paid for by taxpayers, whether they are the taxpayers of today or the taxpayers of tomorrow, and we have to balance our responsibilities to all taxpayers when we make these decisions.
Notwithstanding that, the Budget showed great imagination. It took it on the chin that we need to continue the support until we really can release the restrictions that we are working under. It also laid some foundations to encourage investment—particularly imaginative ones, I would add. In that regard, let me celebrate the fact that the Thames freeport has been given the go-ahead by the Chancellor. Clearly, that will benefit my constituents, but it takes in not just the port of Tilbury but that at London Gateway, the Ford site at Dagenham and what used to be the Petroplus oil refinery in Stanford-le-Hope.
Far from the freeport just displacing activity from elsewhere in the economy, the Ford site and the Petroplus site are redundant industries. Ford manufactures diesel engines for export, and Petroplus, where, clearly, the demand came from petrol-fuelled cars, went into receivership a few years ago. That land is ripe for development, and this is a perfect opportunity to encourage inward investment from overseas to take advantage of the freeport policy. I very much look forward to seeing Ford’s plans to use the Dagenham site, which has been with us for so many decades, to invest in new technology to deliver autonomous vehicles and electric vehicles, because that is the future. This very action will do so much to facilitate that and to breathe economic growth into an area of east London that really deserves it.
It has been very tiresome hearing Opposition Members say, “Oh, all the help’s going to Tory-held seats.” I just remind them that Barking and Dagenham are very much not Tory-held seats, and that Tilbury, which I represent, is the poorest of the 100 poorest towns. I am really grateful that this Government are showing faith in Tilbury and making those investments. Let me also say to those on the Opposition Benches that they could have done it when they were in power, but they chose not to. The Government are doing the right thing, and I commend the Budget to the House.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) [V]
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I represent one of the most deprived constituencies in the country. My constituents have suffered thanks to both the Government’s mismanagement of this pandemic and the decade of brutal austerity that preceded it. Their incomes have been slashed, their jobs thrown on the scrapheap, and their hopes for the future dashed by poverty.
Instead of laying the foundations for an economic recovery by investing in the high-skilled green jobs of the future, the Chancellor presented a Budget that barely papers over the cracks. Secure and well-paid work is the catalyst of any economic recovery, but successive Conservative Chancellors have done nothing to address the scourge of precarious employment and low pay.
When presented with the opportunity to rectify the mistakes of his predecessors and ensure that work really does pay, the Chancellor refused to do so. While Ministers shed crocodile tears for the one in 10 British workers who have been told to accept worse pay and conditions or face the sack, the Government have done nothing to crack down on the use of deplorable fire and rehire tactics.
We need to be putting money in the pockets of consumers, yet the Chancellor plans to freeze the pay of over 2 million key workers, force councils in the poorest parts of the country to raise council tax by up to 5%, and plunge up to 1 million universal credit claimants into poverty by cutting the £20 uplift at the very moment that unemployment is set to peak. That is not just economically illiterate; it is downright cruel.
Yesterday the Chancellor had a real chance to secure economic prosperity and tackle the existential threat of climate breakdown by creating thousands of high-quality green jobs. He spurned that chance and exposed the Prime Minister’s pledge of a green jobs revolution as a sham. By investing in electric vehicle production at the Vauxhall car plant, guaranteeing funding for the Mersey tidal project and the north-west hydrogen cluster and putting the green homes grant back on track, we could create vital jobs in a region that has been devastated by decades of economic vandalism and Government neglect. But the Budget contains a meagre £20 million for floating offshore wind production and no new investment for a green recovery in the automotive, steel or aerospace sectors.
The Government’s national infrastructure bank will provide less than half the funding we received through the European Investment Bank and falls far short of the £30 billion recovery package that Labour is calling for. This makes a mockery of the promise to level up towns like Birkenhead and leaves the UK far behind our European friends in the year that we are due to host COP26. The Government’s shambolic handling of the covid-19 pandemic has plunged the UK into the deepest recession of any advanced economy. The Chancellor’s failure of ambition, foresight and leadership means that the road to recovery will be uncertain, but the path into hardship for many is a certainty.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) [V]
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
It was an impressive and assured performance by the Chancellor. Rightly, it was a no-harm Budget, aimed at steering us through treacherous waters, a light hand on the tiller essential. It has been heartbreaking for me and, I am sure, all colleagues to hear from so many businesses of their dire circumstances. They are run by men and women who have worked hard and taken risks, often having to mortgage their homes, all to make a living for themselves, their families and, of course, their staff. It is this industrious activity that pays for the public sector, not least the NHS and our schools. To raise taxes now would be the straw that broke the camel’s back, so I applaud the Chancellor for not listening to one or two commentators who used to frequent this place.
The Chancellor’s upbeat speech rightly called on enterprise and innovation to reignite our economy, both internally and from abroad. Global Britain requires low taxes, less state and a lithe public sector. Bureaucracy and red tape still afflict progress, but now that we are out of the EU, there is no excuse not to pursue Conservative values and philosophy, and that includes low taxes.
“Levelling up” is an expression frequently used by the Government, and nowhere is that more needed or deserved than South Dorset. At or near the bottom of every source of funding for decades, it is our turn to be nurtured. I shall soon be presenting a business plan to the Prime Minister and Treasury drawn up by business leaders in my seat. To ensure that we attract businesses and investors, we need help to improve our infrastructure. Our over-reliance on tourism and hospitality does little to boost incomes and raise living standards.
I also compliment the Chancellor on extending help to those who are struggling, many through no fault of their own. However, this staggering level of borrowing cannot go on forever. The way out of this financial meltdown is to work our way out. The Chancellor is right to warn that repairing our finances will take the work of many Governments over many years, and that is not taking into account the dual spectres of inflation and rising interest rates. One or both could easily put the ship on the rocks.
Nothing is more important now than to support and nurture the private sector. I welcome the extension of the business rates holiday, the VAT cut, the new restart grants and the recovery loan scheme. However, it should be noted that some businesses will not be able to repay the loans that they have already taken out. On a positive note, the Budget will give reassurance to business, with restrictions lifting and the economy reopening. Let me repeat: we must never forget that it is the tax paid by these businesses that funds our NHS, schools and more besides. The country getting back to work is crucial, and the sooner the better.
With an eye-watering debt of £2.8 trillion, the Chancellor is right to promote growth, growth and more growth. That is not a licence to splurge money now and hike taxes later. The former is necessary in the short term but clearly cannot go on indefinitely. Cutting this support is going to cause pain. Dishing out money is easy, but taking it away is another matter. That is why everything must be done to support those in the private sector, because it is they, not the politicians, who create the jobs. We create an infrastructure within which business thrives. My concluding message to the Chancellor is this: watch the spending and do everything you can to help those who generate our prosperity and jobs.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) [V]
The Chancellor has claimed that the hard choices made by his predecessors over the last 10 years have served our economy well going into this current crisis. A decade-long squeeze on living standards, the rise in insecure and precarious work, and beleaguered public services have in every sense made his unenviable task every bit harder than it needed to be. Our economy has been shown to be particularly vulnerable and less resilient than other comparable economies of similar size, and the much deeper contraction in our own demonstrates exactly that. Alongside this, chaotic decision making and the poor timing of restrictions, all to appease Tory Back Benchers, meant that there were very real economic consequences to the Government kicking the can down the road—that is, until they eventually ran out of road.
The eye-watering sums being spent by the Treasury mean that, for the time being, the taps are on, and the Chancellor is right when he says that we need an investment-led, jobs-rich recovery. While the measures embarked on last year and this year may have just averted devastation for many, I remain unconvinced that the measures announced yesterday will secure a recovery that, crucially, all our people can share in.
The think-tanks are alive with the chatter of levelling up, and yes, there were piecemeal announcements about moving part of the Treasury to Darlington, about the investment bank in Leeds and about the collection of freeports across the land, including one in my own city of Liverpool. But despite the odd headline to help fill Tory election leaflets in marginal seats across the north, it is the poverty of ambition that will perpetuate the poverty that we see in our towns day in and day out. I have to ask: do Conservative Members think that moving the odd civil servant out of London or a one-off fund to help a struggling high street in the midlands will match the requisite scale of ambition to address the deep underlying structural inequalities that exist in modern British society between people and places and between my own north-west region and the south-east of England? If we do not fundamentally address those inequalities of opportunity and outcome, the levelling-up rhetoric will remain exactly that: rhetoric.
There was very little in yesterday’s Budget in respect of targeted sectoral support for our manufacturing base, despite the potential job losses for skilled workers at Vauxhall in Ellesmere Port. There was even less on public sector spending, as the public sector workers who have kept this country going during the pandemic once again get only insulting claps from this Government and are again bracing themselves for the continuation of pay freezes. And disgracefully, there was not a jot on social care.
Priorities are the bedrock of our politics, and it is those priorities that tell us what life looks like for people, their families and their communities. While we remain a society defined by spiralling household debt, insecure work and fire and rehire tactics, and a nation where it is normal to hand over vast amounts of your income to your landlord; where life expectancy is falling in parts of the country and the retirement age continues to rise; where the forgotten and excluded are ignored again; where the queues at food banks are getting ever longer; where children are going hungry and where our elderly are selling their homes to cover the cost of their care, we will never be the happy, confident, outward-looking nation the Government claim to be building. Importantly, this tells us that the priorities of this Tory Government are the wrong ones.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
It is always interesting to get a lecture on economic probity from a member of the Liverpool Labour party.
I will start by saying that I am chuffed to bits. I am very pleased indeed. I might not have got my bid for HS4 between Heywood and Middleton, but there is still time for that, and this is a very good Budget indeed. The past year and a bit has been exceptionally challenging for the country as a whole, but now we are on the path back to normality. We are looking forward to a future, and we have a Budget that supports our ambition to get the country back on its feet.
Yesterday, the Chancellor laid out a fiscal plan not just to help larger companies and the structures of our economy but to support SMEs, the self-employed and those in low-wage employment. We want to get our high streets and local businesses back on track soon and nowhere can that be more true than in Heywood and Middleton.
I am pleased to see that the uplift in universal credit remains until October. I thank the DWP and its team for the inestimable amount of support they have given my constituents and many others who face very real hardship as a result of the difficult but necessary decisions the Government had to take to combat the pandemic. Universal credit has been one of the quiet success stories of the pandemic response. Without its flexibility and agility, many would have found themselves in a precarious position as a result of a legacy benefit system that was still far too complex and clunky to cope.
Because of the importance of safeguarding livelihoods, I also welcome the extension of the furlough scheme and the self-employed income support scheme as part of a package of measures to get people back to work safely. The vast majority of people sat at home on these schemes want to get back to their jobs and their normal lives, and allowing the scheme to run until the end of September will give businesses the headroom they need to get their workforce back safely.
There are a large number of announcements for businesses and job creation in the Budget, one of the most unprecedented being the super deduction, which does exactly what it says on the tin—it is actually super. For companies in Heywood and Middleton, it will be one of the biggest tax cuts in their history and it will get them investing, creating jobs and driving our economic recovery.
Reopening the economy will also need to take account of the fact that some jobs and businesses simply have not been able to survive the economic uncertainties of the pandemic. So, with the launch the restart scheme, hundreds of thousands of long-term unemployed people will be supported back into work. The doubling of the number of work coaches, the introduction of the lifetime skills guarantee to fund level 3 qualifications for all adults and the launch of kickstart to help 250,000 young people into jobs will provide a comprehensive framework for our future prosperity. I welcome the doubling of the incentive payment to SMEs to take on apprentices of any age to £3,000 and the £126 million to triple the number of traineeships next year. With excellent further education providers such as Hopwood Hall College and Rochdale Sixth Form College supporting my constituents, I am confident that they will be well placed to take up these opportunities.
It takes vision and courage to respond to a world crisis with optimism and ambition. The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the Leader of the Opposition, responded with nothing but doom, gloom and a comedy routine that was, ironically, the least funny bit of a pretty poor performance. Rubbishing freeports, deriding world-leading employment support and talking down the north—maybe it is just the way he tells them, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before we go to Sarah Jones, I should say that, after Sarah Jones, the time limit will be reduced to three minutes. But with four minutes, I call Sarah Jones.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab) [V]
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to focus my brief remarks on how the Chancellor could deliver growth in south London.
Over many years, as house prices have risen in inner London, people have moved to outer London where house prices are marginally more affordable. Croydon exemplifies that shift. We love having new people, but we are now an outer-London borough with inner-London costs. As our demographics have shifted, so has the need to fund more social care, health services and education.
We have now reached the worrying situation where Croydon receives £200 less per person compared with some inner boroughs, even though it faces the same and in many cases higher levels of deprivation. Other boroughs often place looked-after children in Croydon. We have a high number of unaccompanied asylum seekers, whom we support. We have a lot of old people’s homes. We welcome them all, but we do not receive the funding to support them.
The first item on my list for the Chancellor is that we need a level playing field, so that we can tackle the challenges we face and give every area the same chance. Funding for local authorities must be rebalanced and we must be supported to deal with the additional costs other areas do not have. Of course, the chronic overall underfunding of local government must stop and we must have proper funding for our services.
Secondly, a quick look at major transport and capital investment shows that south London has actually missed out for decades. We know London is a wonderful area. West London has a well-established economy. North London has seen several recent infrastructure developments, such as the hugely successful King’s Cross development and the start of High Speed 2. The Olympics signalled a shift east for some of our economy on the back of the growth of the stadium, housing and businesses there.
What is south London’s equivalent investment? Many parts do not have the Tube, we do not have bike infrastructure and I cannot remember the last time the Government invested significantly in our transport system. I therefore ask the Chancellor to look at investing in our transport system. East Croydon station and the Windmill bridge outside it require major transformation to keep moving the hundreds of thousands of people who every day travel through East Croydon from the south coast to London. Of course, the number of people using the train has slowed during covid, but it will go back up again and that funding will have to be found, so I ask the Chancellor to do that. Perhaps he can also support our call to move Croydon to zone 4. That could be funded by the rail companies in the new bidding rounds. We need all kinds of infrastructure. Either we should have a Transport for London supported by the Chancellor, or he should give more powers to the Mayor of London so that we can do these things ourselves.
Thirdly, we have high streets that are really struggling. Westfield was due to come to Croydon and build the largest shopping centre in Europe, but because of the insecurities of the high street now, and the unfairness between the business rates paid by our physical businesses and those paid by our online businesses, that has not happened. The insecurity of Brexit did not help. So we need the Chancellor to speed up, review and reform the business rates system, so we can have a level playing field. We want to grow our high streets in Croydon and we will, but we need him to create the climate in which that can happen.
Fourthly, we have the very best, talented people in south London, particularly in Croydon, but Croydon College, a wonderful resource, has had its funding cut by a third. We have to invest in skills and education. Finally, small businesses are the backbone of Croydon and south London, and we need to do more and go further to support them as we build back after covid. It is time for south London to be invested in. I hope the Chancellor will support us.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We will now try to go back to the hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew). Sadly, he has to be audio only.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con) [V]
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yesterday’s Budget had to support people and businesses through this moment of crisis, begin to fix the public finances and build our future economy. The Government’s support for employees and businesses has been nothing short of monumental—we all know that. It has saved millions of people from losing their jobs and prevented hundreds of thousands of businesses from going bust—businesses that are now up and running and able to repay that support as they drive our economic recovery.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions described just some of the myriad support that her Department continues to provide to people in need of additional support. In my constituency, I have seen the kickstart scheme being adopted by local employers, who are keen to take advantage of the support for new employment for young people. I have to refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, because my former business has also joined the kickstart programme. It has done so because kickstart is a great programme that works for business and for young people at risk of long-term unemployment alike. I have visited my local jobcentre in Fakenham and seen the plans to double the number of job coaches across the country, in order to get people who have lost their job back to work as soon as possible. I welcome the Chancellor’s decision to continue his massive support for employment, the self-employed and business right through to September, some months after we should be fully out of lockdown and all our businesses should be back up and running. This Chancellor is focused on jobs above all else and he is absolutely right to take that approach.
However, the immediate recovery is only the first challenge. The Chancellor also needs to lay the ground for our fiscal recovery and the structure of our future prosperity. The British people understand and accept that the massive payments from the Treasury over the last year have to be paid back. The Chancellor acknowledged that that will be a long task, for many Budgets, but it is right that he should be frank with us about the scale of the challenge and where we have to start. Nobody normal likes tax rises, but we get it. Our incomes have been supported by tax money over the last year, so a gradual clawback via the freezing of income tax thresholds is a fair way to start the job; it is a sensible, gradual approach, where the better-off pay more. Likewise, businesses accept that it is fair to start to repay the huge support they have received. The increase in corporation tax on profits of larger companies starts in two years’ time, after a huge boost to investment through the £25 billion super deduction tax cut. It makes sense.
This is a Budget for recovery and growth. The former Labour Member for Birkenhead, now Lord Field, said yesterday
“To be successful in politics, you have to ride two political horses simultaneously. Rishi has done a budget for the hour and made the possibility of long-term prosperity...Best budget in my 42 years in politics.”
He was not wrong.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) [V]
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor delivered a Budget that responded to the continuing needs of this country, navigating our route out of lockdown and supporting growth and those in need. I do not mind telling the House that yesterday for me was a very good day—the kind of day you will always remember. Everyone in this House comes here for a reason and a motivation. Mine has always been that the Labour party has always let the north down, and that the north-east, where I was born, raised and educated, and where I grew a business, could achieve so much more, given just half a chance. I know that that belief and vision are shared completely by our Chancellor.
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend helped to realise not just my hopes, dreams and ambitions for Darlington, but those of our council, our Tees Valley Mayor and, most importantly, the community I serve. A child growing up in Darlington, attending a local school and gaining a degree from a local university can now aspire to a career in the civil service and achieve that without having to leave their hometown. Indeed, thanks to the lifetime skills announcements, there will be people in Darlington who left school at 16 and never studied again who can gain a level 3 qualification and secure employment at Her Majesty’s Treasury. That is levelling up. That is putting opportunity in a town in the north-east of England that Governments of the past have overlooked. The Chancellor has listened, understood and taken action, making a real difference to the town I represent that will last beyond a generation.
The announcement of the freeport for Teesside will also have a long-lasting impact for Darlington. I know, too, that the employed, the unemployed, the self-employed and the employers of my constituency will welcome everything that my right hon. Friend announced yesterday, continuing and extending the support to our nation.
Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition said that delivering Treasury jobs to Darlington was giving up. What an insult. What a lack of understanding. Labour has not learned. It no longer understands, and no amount of fake Union Jack waving or consultants dressing them in smart suits will teach them that the British people have rightly given up on them.
Yesterday, this Tory Government and this northern Chancellor achieved more in one Budget for my region than 13 years of Labour ever did. To celebrate this amazing news for Darlington, I am looking forward to welcoming Sir Humphrey to the town he will affectionately call Darlo.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) [V]
This was a Budget for politics, not economics—a way of polishing the Chancellor’s image and that of his party. In the real world, key workers face the real-terms cut of a pay freeze. Households face a council tax hike, and businesses with zero revenues face loan repayments when they needed an overhaul of business rates.
The OBR has confirmed that the UK had the worst economic performance of any major country and that the approach to the public health crisis made the economic crisis worse. We have had longer lockdowns because of delays going into lockdown; £22 billion on the failed outsourcing of test and trace; cronyism in contracting for unusable personal protective equipment; hopelessly inadequate self-isolation payments and sick pay; delays in announcing and extending furlough and self-employment support; and repeatedly slow decision making by the Government. Those things have played their part in the scale of the dual health and economic crises we face.
Shamefully, yesterday’s Budget offered precious little to the millions of people—owner-managers, pregnant women and freelancers—excluded from support throughout, including Alison Powell in my constituency, who was denied support because her tax return showed £10 more income in employment than while self-employed. Meanwhile, countless others who filed tax returns for 2019-20 had to wait a whole year to qualify for any support. Unfortunately, previous Conservative announcements have not matched the price of the headlines: only 13 jobs are created by kickstart each day, while 292 are lost; just 2,500 homes benefit from green housing grants, against the stated target of 600,000; and self-isolation payments are denied to seven out of eight people. It is no wonder that only three in 10 people self-isolate when asked to do so. Work on rail for the north has been announced 60 times, and 60 times it has been forgotten.
Will the announcements from yesterday deliver on Conservative promises? Will they be more than headline-grabbing gimmicks, which will be quickly forgotten when the Chancellor’s shiny caravan of self-promotion moves on? The country needed a Budget for jobs and recovery. The planet needed investment in low-carbon industries. Instead, the Government showed their lack of commitment by scrapping the industrial strategy council. The Chancellor is ambitious, yes, but he is ambitious for himself. Yesterday’s Budget promises may have given the Chancellor’s brand a short-term boost, but the lack of long-term investment does not match the scale of the challenge that we face.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con) [V]
Yesterday, the Chancellor gave us a Peterborough Budget. It was exactly what my city needs to restart and to grow. There are no easy decisions in a pandemic, but this Budget is the basis of a swift and sustained recovery, and, as the Chancellor has said, the recovery will be swifter and more sustained than had previously been thought. That is great news for the country, yet, as I am sure you will understand, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am keenest on great news for Peterborough and that news came when the Chancellor spoke about the new levelling-up fund.
Even before the Budget, my city has benefited enormously from this Conservative Government: £16 million for our new science and technical university and research hub; £23 million from the towns fund to revitalise our city centre; extra police officers patrolling the streets of Bretton, Dogsthorpe, Ravensthorpe and beyond; and all the additional funding for Peterborough City Council to tackle covid-19 while getting tough on fly-tipping and antisocial behaviour. In other words, there was enough to be satisfied with. Regrettably for Ministers, though, I am never fully satisfied. I am always asking for more because I know the scale of Peterborough’s potential.
The Chancellor gets my requests regularly. Before this week, we knew that there would be a £4.8 billion levelling-up fund, but what we did not know was where it would be spent. I am thrilled that Peterborough is at the top of this bidding list in priority category 1.
The reality was a Budget that put Peterborough first: the restart grants to help businesses reopen and get our economy moving; the extensions to the furlough scheme and the top-up of universal credit; additional help for the self-employed; and further help for businesses on business rates and VAT. I had written to the Chancellor about that, too, noting how it would give my local businesses the shot in the arm that they so desperately need and they are delighted.
Perhaps it is at the pumps that my constituents will be most grateful. Thanks to successive Conservative Chancellors, we are saving a fortune when we fill up our tanks, with a 10-year freeze on fuel duty. The beer freeze means that we also save when our glasses are filled at the pump. I know to whom I shall raise my first post-lockdown pint; it is to a Chancellor who is delivering for my city.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
Yesterday’s Budget was littered with betrayals. Public services were betrayed: unbelievably, there was nothing additional to fund the NHS and social care, but, worse, hidden in the small print was a plan to take a further £4 billion from Government Department budgets every year. Workers were betrayed: there was nothing to raise the lowest level of sick pay in the OECD and, despicably, no pay rise for nurses and care workers, after everything they have done for us in this crisis. They are exhausted, and some even feel suicidal.
Then there is Salford—betrayed. As the 18th most deprived area in the UK, rather than a package of support we saw the Chancellor handing over 90% of new town funds cash to Conservative seats, some affluent. For those facing financial hardship, there was again betrayal. Extending the £20 universal credit uplift and furlough schemes is certainly welcome, but to remove that support just as unemployment is likely to spike is economically and morally bankrupt. Further, the burgeoning household debt crisis was ignored. Those still facing devastating costs as a result of the building safety crisis were ignored, and more than 2 million remain excluded from any covid support at all.
Finally, on climate change, there was gross betrayal. I must admit that I was intrigued when the Government stole our green industrial revolution tagline, and I secretly hoped that they would adopt Labour’s programme too. It would have been to all of our benefits, with 1.9% invested each year on energy and homes alone, which would have provided over £800 billion across the UK by 2030, and 850,000 new jobs. That would have been a true green recovery, but so far in comparison we have seen pitiful levels of investment. Yesterday, we saw a paltry £12 billion for a new green infrastructure bank, the green recovery bonds, shiny retail savings products, and some distant report into carbon offsetting, all amounting to very little.
If the Government were serious about tackling climate change, they would grab the opportunity to reverse decades of de-industrialisation with a bold green regional investment strategy. Instead, they have betrayed us in the fight against climate change, betrayed our recovery and betrayed our financial security.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
Just to be on the safe side, I will refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Nobody starts a business with anything other than a dream of what they want to achieve. Many leave a secure job to start a job in something that they adore, to start their own business and to grow it into something that may change their lives and those of many others over the years.
This past year, the pandemic has hit us in a way that has not so much dashed many of those dreams but paused them. The Budget has shown a deep understanding of how small businesses run, and the need to support them through furlough schemes and different initiatives that will enable them to restart and kickstart in the coming weeks and months and for the next few years so that those dreams become a reality.
One of the truths of the past few months has been the brilliant initiative of the kickstart scheme itself. I was very fortunate recently to have a Zoom meeting with Chris Luff and Saffron from our local Watford and West Herts chamber of commerce. They put me in front of a bunch of inspirational young people who are all part of a new kickstart scheme that they are running. They told me not just about the economics and the finances, and all the stuff that we like to talk about in this place, but their dreams, how it was changing their lives, and how it was giving them hope for their futures.
The Budget gives us the opportunity to look not just inward, but outward. I have seen the hope around education. During the past year, we have seen through such things as the Oak Academy the ability to use education to teach people not just the facts but how to inspire themselves to be better and to be different. One of the bits in the Budget that was not picked up on massively was the investment in infrastructure and skills—business skills and business leadership.
I am sure you will be too young, Madam Deputy Speaker, to remember the adverts that used to talk about teaching the world to sing, but I think that global Britain will be able simply to teach the world. Our ability to invest in business leadership, to invest in our young people and, as we have proven in the Budget, to deliver on that means that we can export those skills around the world. We can export leadership around the world, and I am really proud that we can look on yesterday as a way to look forward. The Prime Minister gave an excellent speech on the road map to recovery, but this Budget is not just for the next six months or the next year; this is a Budget for decades to come, and I back it wholeheartedly.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I am afraid I do remember the adverts about teaching the world to sing.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]
The extension of the £20 uplift to universal credit is welcome, but why is it to be snatched away in September? What will have changed by then for the nearly 5,000 universal credit claimants in Arfon—a number that has doubled in a year; for the 47,000 households in Wales that depend on universal credit; or for the 53,000 children in Wales who have benefited from this modest increase? Their needs will be the same and they will have become accustomed to being better able to meet those needs—although providing a decent standard of living for children, even on the enhanced level of universal credit, is a huge challenge.
It is not the poverty that blights the lives of so many children that will have changed; rather, it is the Chancellor and this Government’s chosen policy—their response, which denies people’s real lived experience and deliberately increases poverty. That is the charge against them: generating, not alleviating, poverty. I have listened to the Chancellor and his friends trying to justify this cut to the incomes of the very poorest and trying to avoid the question, and I have not heard a single half-plausible answer, other than that the modest improvement to universal credit was always meant to be temporary and so is temporary.
The justification is: “The poor will always be with us”. Well, I reject that contention, as do so many other people—those who depend on universal credit; those who have had to claim it for the first time and are appalled by the meanness of the system; and those who have seen their friends and relatives lose their jobs through no fault of their own and whose families are now experiencing poverty as the deliberate policy of this Government. The ancient ploy of deliberately imposing poverty on the workless has never been justified, and that is even more true now, when circumstances throw people on the mercy of an inadequate system. We are all victims of covid-19, but some are more victimised than others.
Over the past year we have seen this Government rectifying their many failures, one after another, with one policy reversal after another, with catastrophic consequences not only for their credibility but, more importantly, for those who suffer from the initial policy decisions. The decision to cut universal credit is just one such failure. I have no care for this Government’s credibility—they are already busted in my eyes; what concerns me is not their credibility but the welfare of families and children throughout the UK. My one call today, then, is for the Chancellor not to punish poor people, and certainly not to punish their poor children.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I was very pleased with the Budget yesterday. I signed a few letters, with colleagues, to call for various things, with a sort of 70% or 80% success rate. Universal credit has been extended for another six months and fuel duty has been frozen for the 10th year in a row. I called for beer duty to be cut; I do not think it was cut, but it was frozen, and there is other support for hospitality, which is very much welcome.
We heard a lot yesterday about levelling-up and what it means for the north of England and the midlands, but we also saw yesterday a demonstration from the Government that when they talk about levelling-up, they are not just talking about the midlands and the north of England. My own constituency of Ipswich has pockets of real deprivation; what did we get yesterday? We got the maximum £25 million from the towns deal fund, for 11 projects that will be a key boost for our town. What else did we get? We got Freeport East. Some 6,000 of my constituents are employed either directly or indirectly by the port of Felixstowe, so the success of that port matters for my constituency and for my constituents.
Let me look at the town deal and what it means in terms of skills and jobs. The health and social care academy, which the town deal will fund through £2 million to £3 million via the University of Suffolk, will train the next generation of nurses and social care workers in our town. The maritime skills academy will be on the Island site in Ipswich, where we have some of world’s most elegant yachts, which are made in Ipswich and exported around the world. With this academy, they will now be made and developed by craftsmen trained in Ipswich and from Ipswich. That is very much to be welcomed. There has been a bit of a hoo-hah and debate about these town deals over the last day. In some senses, Labour politicians in other parts of the country are a little bit bitter that they have not got a town deal like Ipswich has—for £25 million—but what is slightly surprising is the reaction of Ipswich Labour party, who surely, you would think, would be jumping for joy at the fact that it got this £25 million. I remember when the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government visited Ipswich before the general election and the town deal was dismissed as an election bribe that would never happen. I am glad to see that the leader of Ipswich Borough Council has now changed his ways and welcomes it, but it is a shame that not all of his councillor colleagues do, and they continue, even after yesterday’s news, to refer to it as a bribe and negatively.
The reality is that there are parts of the town that long supported the Labour party, but felt let down by it—I am talking about areas such as Chantry and Gainsborough. It was myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) who actually fought for a town deal to include a project to be entirely about investing in those communities—investing in local shopping parades in Chantry and Gainsborough and investing in keeping community assets. This is a Budget for the country and it is also a Budget for Ipswich, and it is to be welcomed.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab) [V]
When people ask me why I became an MP, I explain that I got tired of shouting at the radio. This morning, I found myself shouting at the Chancellor on Radio 4, so this afternoon, I am speaking up for my constituents, because the Government’s decisions are failing them. They have been failing them for more than a decade and it has to change. After all the pain and sacrifice of the last year, we cannot afford to go back to austerity and insecurity.
As the shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), said in opening the debate, the OBR has confirmed that this Government’s failure on the covid crisis has left our country facing the worst economic crisis of any major economy. They have been too slow to act, they have wasted billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on contracts with their cronies that did not even deliver, and they have failed to put in place the financial support that is needed to help people to self-isolate.
Now, instead of putting the UK on the road to recovery and fixing the mistakes of the past, they are repeating them. There is nothing in the Budget for the NHS, even though we know that extra resources are desperately needed to tackle the waiting lists that have grown during the pandemic. There was not even a mention of social care in yesterday’s speech, and the Chancellor’s claim that he is pursuing cross-party consensus is not credible. There was no extra money to help children to catch up on lost schooling, and we know what that means: widening inequalities, hitting kids from low-income families hardest. Yes, there was finally that uplift in universal credit, but the Chancellor is still not helping those on legacy benefits and the cliff-edge cut will hit precisely when unemployment is expected to peak.
And there is worse to come. Now is not the time to raise taxes or cut household spending power, but that is precisely what the Chancellor is doing, forcing councils to implement a 5% hike in council tax, freezing the pay of key workers, taking money out of people’s pockets, cutting the money that they have to spend with local businesses and on our high streets, damaging the recovery. There are further tax rises to come next year alongside £14 billion of cuts to public services.
Local government has already been hit by 10 years of cuts. Adult social care makes up nearly half of Nottingham City Council’s budget. Demand for services is rising and, in more deprived cities such as ours, the social care precept leaves a growing gap. Will the Chancellor apologise to my constituents who have seen their much-needed local services under threat, the families who rely on Summerwood day centre, those who use John Carroll leisure centre and those whose local bus service is set to disappear? Where is the investment that we need to support the recovery and set us up for a successful green future? It simply is not there.
This a terrible Budget. It is a shocking indictment. None of it was inevitable; it is the result of Tory mismanagement. I will not shout, but it makes me want to scream.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) [V]
This Budget is a missed opportunity. There is no vision, no long-term economic plan and no Biden boost. While I welcome the extension of furlough and the universal credit uplift, yesterday’s announcement simply shunts the cliff edge down the line and does nothing to tackle the fundamental problems that families and business face. The Chancellor has failed to build the bridge to the future that the economy needs. Businesses such as the Edinburgh Beer Factory, a brewery in my constituency, will see their costs balloon before demand returns. They need tapered reliefs and long-term solutions.
I welcome the increase in corporation tax, because businesses in profit can most afford to pay up. In Scotland, we have provided certainty and stability to business with a further 12-month extension of 100% non-domestic rates relief for retail, hospitality, leisure and aviation. The Chancellor has failed to do the same in England, and he needs to up his game for English business. Where is the promised online tax? Many high street retailers are frustrated when they see how companies such as Amazon and Apple have benefited from the pandemic, but still somehow seem to avoid taxation. The way retail is operating now has completely changed, and we need to think about how we tax the new reality. Too much focus on business rates for revenue raising could prevent the much-needed revival for small businesses on our high streets and in our city centres.
Some of Edinburgh’s biggest financial services employers operate in my constituency, and there was a vibrant community of independent local businesses serving their offices. One of these is the Wee Coffee Bar, run by my constituent Sharon Miller. Yet with most offices closed, footfall in our business district has dropped to almost zero, and successful popular businesses such as Sharon’s are struggling to make ends meet. Lockdown has had a big impact on our mental health and wellbeing. Hot Yoga Edinburgh, owned by Allison Harrison, adapted to the best of her ability to meet online needs, but she is suffering real financial hardship as the cost of rent and other overheads exceed the money coming in. She needs the certainty of longer-term support and a credible plan for the recovery of our business districts to help her stay afloat.
Many of my self-employed constituents, including creatives, freelancers and company directors, remain excluded from covid support, and as in so many aspects of this pandemic, women are disproportionately affected. This crisis offered us the opportunity to change our economy and invest for the future. An independent Scotland would take this opportunity and carefully plan a way forward. Constrained in this Union, we are locked into more of the same from this Chancellor for the time being.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]
The Chancellor rightly set this Budget in the context of the economic damage of covid-19, but he failed to mention the bigger impact from his Government’s Brexit deal. That is perhaps unsurprising because the former was beyond their control, while the latter is of their creation. Hidden in the figures is an admission that Brexit will hit GDP by 0.5% in the first quarter alone, and the OBR has of course said that there will be a long-run hit of 4%. These are the inevitable consequences of erecting barriers to trade with our biggest economic partner, but the Chancellor should do what he promised and
“be honest with the country about the challenges we face”.—[Official Report, 3 March 2021; Vol. 690, c. 256.]
Last month, the CBI, the Institute of Directors, Make UK, the Federation of Small Businesses and the British Chambers of Commerce warned the Government to remove obstacles to trade or face a “significant loss of business”. Frankly, it is time that they listened and acted.
A startling omission yesterday was the NHS. We need a proper inquiry into the Government’s handling of the pandemic to understand why we have one of the highest death rates in the world. However, one factor is clear: a decade of running our health service on a knife edge, expecting maximum delivery from minimum funding, left us with too few nurses, doctors and beds. The crisis demanded capacity we lacked, and catching up on the treatment backlog will demand more. But instead of the funding that was needed, the Chancellor is proposing a £30 billion cut. What an insult to the NHS staff he was so happy to be photographed clapping! It is a cut for the system that has stretched them to the limit, and no money for the sort of pay rise they deserve, while other key workers on whom we have depended face a pay freeze.
Social care was also forgotten yesterday. On taking office, the Prime Minister promised that
“we will fix the crisis in social care once and for all with a clear plan we have prepared”.
In this Budget and in his interviews this morning, his would-be successor, the Chancellor, has acknowledged there is no plan. So much for honesty with the British people. We do need that plan, and we need it soon.
The Chancellor did of course bow to pressure on maintaining the universal credit uplift. It should continue beyond October and it should be extended to legacy benefits. The Disability Benefits Consortium says that costs for 95% of disabled people have increased during the pandemic. The Budget gave nothing to them or to others who have been affected, letting down the most vulnerable.
Beneath the Chancellor’s expensive PR that is the real signature on the Budget. It fails too many people, and it lacks the ambition that the country needs.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the second day of this debate.
Our country had high hopes for this Budget at a time when we need it most; not only are we experiencing a pandemic crisis but we are still in a climate crisis, and the Government seem to have forgotten this. After a year of economic devastation, the gap between richest and poorest in our society has become wider. We needed long-term investment in our public services and our communities, but the Government were silent on the matter.
Yesterday’s Budget statement will provide relief to some, but it is a grave disappointment to others. The Budget promised no emergency funding for the NHS to clear backlogs and reduce waiting times. There was no mention of mental ill health support post-pandemic, no support for social care after the sector has faced severe challenges during the pandemic in both children’s and adult services, no mention of green home grants, and only a £20 million spend on floating offshore wind technology, when Labour has called for £30 billion of capital spend to be brought forward to power a green recovery and support over 400,000 jobs. There was no help for our teachers and no additional investment to help children and young people catch up on the lost months of education; and no rise in statutory sick pay, which is so low that people are falling into severe debt and some are considering working because they cannot afford not to.
I wonder if the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Chancellor and their offices communicate and work together, because on 12 February the Housing Secretary announced £3.5 billion to fully fund the cost of addressing unsafe cladding in the tallest buildings. Details were promised in the Budget. What happened to this information? Did the Chancellor miss out reading a page of his notes? I was hoping to see a fairer approach from the Government, to protect leaseholders living in buildings under 11 metres in height with fire defects and unsafe cladding, to protect them from costs when the problems are no fault of their own. Instead, there was no such information. I ask the Chancellor again to consider this and to be fair to leaseholders and their families, as no one wishes to live in a home with negative equity.
The success of the Government, or indeed any Government, will be achieved when the need for food banks decreases, but under this Government it seems that they are here to stay.
This Budget also lets down our local authorities, and through them all our communities. My borough of Lewisham is having to make a further £28 million in cuts; hard-working and caring Labour councillors will receive the blame for cutting services, but their hand has been forced by a 63% reduction in Government funding since 2010. The whole country needs rebuilding, but for this to happen we need to build our local councils.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) [V]
Cutting through the fanfare, this Budget was devoid of imagination and substance. It may see Britain through to the end of the Prime Minister’s road map, but it does not come close to addressing the social, economic and climate crisis we face.
From this Budget, we can assume that the Conservatives intend to increase poverty, rather than end it. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation says that the Chancellor has created “a perfect storm” by planning to cut universal credit just as unemployment peaks, while he has also continued the Conservatives’ hostile environment for disabled people by ignoring legacy benefits. I dread to think what it will be like for the families who will be forced to use food banks because of his cruelty.
What was there for Durham’s NHS workers, teachers, prison staff and the rest of our public-sector key workers? There were a few claps and a pay freeze. That is not levelling-up; that is a slap in the face.
I cannot have been the only one who was shocked by the absence of any reference to our NHS and social care from the Budget speech. These sectors have been stretched to breaking point, held together only by the determination of those who staff them, yet instead of a recovery plan the Chancellor chose to slash NHS spending, with no strategy to tackle the backlog or the mental health crisis.
The Chancellor also seems to be clueless when it comes to the challenges facing our communities over the coming years, with a £14 billion cut to public services over this Parliament. In Durham, our council and schools have led the way in their pandemic support for residents, but they simply cannot continue on minimal funding. The Government’s council tax rise serves only to deflect blame for Tory cuts while making our local communities pay for the crisis. Durham’s public sector is desperate to lead our local recovery. The Chancellor just needs to give it the resources to do so.
The Chancellor’s remedy for businesses seems to be to help them to limp along until after the pandemic and then leave them at the mercy of the upcoming economic crisis. Durham’s high streets were struggling before the pandemic started. Where is our fightback strategy? This Chancellor is no friend of the independent businesses that are the heartbeat of our high streets.
This Budget called for vision and ambition that met the challenges of the pandemic head on with a bold plan for our recovery—a Budget that learned the lessons of a decade of austerity, deregulation and the eradication of workers’ rights. Instead, the Chancellor came up short yet again. Rather than rebuild, we got a sticking plaster designed to tide us over. Our health services were ignored, our key workers abandoned, our environment forgotten and our economy failed. Britain needs and deserves better.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) [V]
In common with so much of what we have seen from this Government during their handling of the pandemic, this was a Budget for selected beneficiaries. Carefully picked groups are going to do well, but it was quite clearly not a Budget for the nation as a whole.
We could have had, for example, a bold move on business rates. Real reform in this area to level the playing field between high street and digital retail has been long overdue. Consumer behaviour is changing, and that change has been accelerated by the pandemic. What is the long-term future for our town centres? How will our communities thrive without the retail businesses that traditionally provide the heart of our towns? We need to lower the barriers to entry to retail and other town centre businesses, and invite new entrepreneurs to try new ideas.
But instead of business rates reform or devolution of power to local authorities, which could have allowed for real change across the whole country, a select few high streets, mostly in Tory-supporting constituencies, get a cash bung. The Chancellor’s bold new plan is for a super deduction that will enable cash-rich firms to get an extremely generous tax deduction on expenditure on plant and machinery across the next two years before being hit with a corporation tax hike. I can tell the Chancellor that after 12 months of little to no trading, many firms in my constituency simply do not have the cash in the bank to make these kinds of investments. Many of them will be burdened by a great deal of debt and unable to take on any more, and will face a long, slow road back towards profitability. Demoralised and exhausted after the effects of the past year, their reward will be a huge hike in corporation tax rates. I am concerned that many will consider it not worth their while. It would have been better to have a windfall tax now on the companies that have continued to prosper during the pandemic and then cut rates again in a few years to encourage those who are rebuilding. Again, only a select number of businesses will benefit from these changes.
We need to see policy for real stimulation and growth in the green economy. We know that we need to transition from carbon-emitting industries if we are to achieve net zero, so we must grasp the nettle of investment in green jobs. There is real opportunity for growth there, but the private sector is waiting for Government strategy and policy to set a direction. The Chancellor could have set that direction yesterday with promises to invest in green technology or to come up with a bold new plan for retrofitting to replace the green homes grant, but he did not.
What is the Chancellor’s plan for investing in sectors that will create jobs in the future? It is freeports, in selected sites, yet there is little evidence that they create economic activity rather than displace it. Again, we see the benefits concentrated in preferred areas of the country rather than a strategy for the country as a whole. The one advantage of freeports, of course, is that they can avoid customs duties and paperwork, currently creating such a barrier to trading thanks to the Government’s terrible deal with the EU. I find it extraordinary that the Chancellor made no mention of how he plans to offset the OBR’s projected 4% hit to the UK’s GDP as a result of leaving the EU. The Chancellor is bringing forward planned economic activity or concentrating it in specific areas of the country rather than investing in new sources of wealth and future jobs. This Budget ignores the real needs of our economy, both for the immediate challenges of the pandemic and for its long-term future.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) [V]
I am not sure that people will think the Chancellor is being straight about stealth taxes, resulting in the largest tax burden since 1969; that they will applaud pension taxes, as doctors leave the NHS or cut their hours; or that they will support a 50p rise for statutory sick pay. Almost 2.5 million excluded self-employed are still going to be left high and dry. In response to my survey, 85% of constituents said that they wanted help for those excluded.
The support schemes sound impressive, but they involve complex applications and administration. The fear is that they will not reach the right people in time. Small businesses need easy access and affordable help, especially with rent and cash flow, which are real impediments to survival.
My constituency has large numbers of young unemployed and many self-employed people at risk. Some 94% of my Selly Oak constituents said in response to my Budget survey that they wanted action on unemployment to be a priority. How will that happen unless programmes are simplified and better targeted? We need training for the young unemployed—not sluggish, dead-end schemes—as well as rapid reskilling for those who lose their livelihoods and joined-up training.
Why does the super deduction policy take no account of whether investment would have occurred anyway, the areas that will benefit, or if it might end up costing rather than saving jobs? It would be better to tie it to research and development. We could have a targeted plan to shift support to parts of the country other than Oxford, Cambridge, London and the south-east. The number of R&D jobs in London and the south-east is already three times greater than in the midlands, not because it is more creative, but because it has access to greater funding. If the Chancellor wants electric cars built in the midlands, new jobs in climate change adaptation, machine learning in medical technology and food security, he needs to direct resources to those areas that can deliver. If the uplift in public R&D was linked to a targeted policy and focused on projects outside the golden triangle, that could mean a further £9 billion boost.
The Chancellor could also establish a fresh round of technology institutes, build on the Catapult network by announcing long-term funding, and expand university enterprise zones. That is how to level up, and that is how to create new jobs and a thriving economy.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]
Yesterday’s Budget needed to do two things: first, support communities and businesses through the economic crisis created by the pandemic; and secondly, outline a comprehensive strategy to kick-start the UK’s recovery. However, the Chancellor failed to deliver on both counts.
All I can draw out from the Chancellor’s Budget speech is that, rather than meaning redistributing wealth and investment and giving working class people a real stake in their economy, “levelling up” seems to mean moving part of the Treasury to Darlington, creating a few freeports and rehashing old funding. It is smoke and mirrors to cement the status quo—policies that fail to provide a vision for a more prosperous, fairer society and that will not improve people’s day-to-day lives.
There is nothing for the NHS, social care, schools or local council services, and no meaningful plan to tackle the housing crisis. Rather than levelling up living standards, the Budget has downgraded them, with a public sector pay freeze, forcing councils to increase council tax, and announcing a £20-a-week cut to universal credit in six months’ time.
My Luton South constituents needed to see plans for a more secure, equal and sustainable future, with the Chancellor committing to a new green economy based on full employment and a strong public sector. By choosing to adopt a half-baked, unambitious version of Labour’s commitment to a green investment bank, the Chancellor failed fully to comprehend the scale of the climate emergency we face. The funding made available to the bank offers only a fraction of that recommended by the National Infrastructure Commission, and no new investment has been announced for green recoveries in key industries such as automotive and aerospace.
The free market is incapable of addressing the climate crisis—in fact, I would say that it was market failure that created the crisis—so policies that weaken the state’s role in the market, such as the super deduction tax, only reduce the Government’s ability to incentivise and direct investment towards a green transition. Instead, the UK needs an innovative, Government-led industrial strategy that stimulates green growth and job creation, ensuring that the transition is equitable and that everyone has the opportunity to have a well-paid, skilled job—something that the market is incapable of delivering.
Last week, Unite the union highlighted seven shovel-ready projects that would help the UK to develop as a modern manufacturing nation. Investing in those projects would have wide-ranging benefits. For example, building gigafactories and rapid charging infrastructure would help Vauxhall in Luton South transition to manufacturing electric vehicles. Labour has repeatedly called for a £30 billion green economic recovery to create 400,000 secure, unionised jobs in clean industries. We must not return to the same insecure, unequal, unsustainable economy that preceded the pandemic.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to be called to close the second day of the Budget debate. Budget debates are, in my view, one of the very best parts of our parliamentary process. They are a chance to talk about the big picture—a chance to raise the things that must be said—and nearly 50 Members of Parliament have done so in this debate today. To be able to speak and vote on the measures in any Budget is a great privilege and responsibility for us all, and in closing the debate, I will talk about what I believe the Chancellor needed to do and reference the many good speeches we have heard.
However, we need to start with the big picture. What the Chancellor presented yesterday was a Budget of high taxes, high unemployment and low growth. I do not think that is in dispute. In fact, if the forecasts are right, the historically low levels of growth we saw going into this crisis are now the norm. That, combined with our serious productivity and business investment problem and the challenges caused by our leaving the single market, shows that the scale of the challenge is very significant indeed.
That means that there were two things I wanted most of all from this Budget. First, I wanted to see a clear road map to economic recovery, with a relentless focus on jobs, jobs and jobs again; and secondly, I wanted to see some recognition from the Chancellor that the terrible impact of the pandemic on the UK has been partly due to the state the country was in going into the crisis. Whether on NHS capacity, insecure work or child poverty, this crisis has taken the fraying social fabric of the UK and torn it apart. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher) made that point very well.
The objective for us all should be to promise not to return to the country we had going into the pandemic, but to do better than that—to promise opportunity, prosperity and resilience far greater than we had in the decade leading into covid. After all, is that not what previous generations who sat on these Benches did after the crises that they faced? They turned their crises into a better future.
The starting point in any debate about protecting the British people in this crisis has to be a recognition of the inequality in how the pandemic has been felt. Yes, we have all been affected by covid in some way, but a person who, for instance, has been able to work from home on full pay, perhaps with a study and a garden, has been in a fundamentally easier position than those who have had no income for over a year. Men and women have been affected differently, with the majority of home schooling falling on women, and different parts of the country have been hit worse than others. That is why I was genuinely disappointed with the ambition, the scope and the policies of the Chancellor yesterday. The Budget did not have that big vision that we needed. I will address that and say what I would have preferred to see.
I will start with jobs. At least the Chancellor saw sense, listened to Labour and the unions and business, and did the right thing by extending the furlough scheme. It is remarkable to me that the Chancellor originally thought it could end last year. But even with furlough mitigating the rise in unemployment, a forecast of unemployment at 6.5% is very high. That means over 2 million people out of work. While furlough protects those in work, we need to do more for the 1.7 million already unemployed. We have lost 700,000 jobs in this crisis. Long-term unemployment is nearly half a million. Half of all disabled people are out of work. Kickstart is not delivering, and restart has not started. Crucially, even if kickstart worked as well as Ministers hope, the scale of the challenge is already greater than the full capacity of the scheme.
I wanted the Government to live up to their rhetoric and offer young people a real guarantee. Young people have suffered so much in the crisis, so let us take the action needed and make sure that no young person is out of work or education for longer than six months. We should promise young people an offer of education, employment or training and link those jobs and training to the challenges the country faces on social care, the NHS, schools and climate change. Time spent on furlough should count towards that limit, so that we do not see the long-term scarring that we know comes from periods of sustained economic inactivity. We could use the money already allocated to employment programmes. We could reform the apprenticeship levy to complement that and spend the money this year and next, when it will be most needed.
That brings me on to universal credit, which many Members have understandably mentioned. Cutting universal credit and working tax credit by £1,000 this year would have been unthinkable and unforgivable, and I make no apologies for how hard we have fought the Government on this issue. The Chancellor could and should have done the right thing and the responsible thing many months ago, yet, as with free school meals, the Government have once again been dragged kicking and screaming to do the right thing. But what we heard yesterday was a half-measure—a £500 cut this year, with £1,000 cut the year after that.
Because of the way that Ministers have behaved, 6 million families have faced months of uncertainty about whether they would continue to get the support they need to cover the costs of the pandemic. These people deserve certainty, and all the Chancellor has done is inflict another cliff edge. On 1 October this year, furlough will end, the self-employment income support scheme will end and universal credit will go down to its lowest level in real terms in 30 years. How can that be right?
What is going on with working tax credit, which the Government are instead offering as a £500 lump sum? The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was absolutely right when she said to the Work and Pensions Committee earlier this year,
“Previous experience would be that a steady sum of money would probably be more beneficial to claimants”
than one-off lump sums. I believe she reiterated that position in her introductory speech. She is right, but the Chancellor was not listening.
I have to raise again the plight of those people on legacy benefits such as jobseeker’s allowance and employment and support allowance, which my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, did so very well in his speech. These people never had the uplift to begin with. The Government said that it was because it would take too long to do, and as the crisis has gone on, the Government have chosen to ignore them. They know it is not possible for many of those people to transfer on to universal credit because they might be worse off due to the design of universal credit. That is appalling.
What we needed was for the Chancellor to take his own advice on honesty, because the honest take on this situation is that we do not have a social security system that is fit for purpose. That is why keeping the uplift is so contentious. It is why those people on legacy benefits feel so strongly. It is why the excluded exist, and it is why the Government had to make so many changes to the system at the beginning of the crisis.
Although, hopefully, we will not have another pandemic, the impact of technology and trade adjustments on the labour market will become only more acute, and the sooner the Government recognise that, the better. The decision to lift the rate of universal credit was an admission that the level of support was not good enough to help families through this crisis. The uplift should remain until it is finally replaced with a system that provides genuine security for all. The Secretary of State said in opening that she is frustrated by that position. If the Government have been able to accept our arguments on corporation tax, a national investment bank and the minimum wage, perhaps in time they will accept this argument too.
This was a Budget that did not address the challenges facing our country today and offered very little for the future. That focus on the future should have run through the whole Budget, but it simply was not there. There was nothing on schools or education at all, even though, like so many, I have sleepless nights worrying about my children and how they will ever catch up from what they have lost. There was nothing serious for town centres, which are already grappling with changes and facing huge challenges as retail moves more and more online. There was nothing on the future of work and how we harness the change in working patterns to spread prosperity across the country. There was nothing even for our incredible NHS except a £30 billion cut from April this year and no mention of how we will get through the huge backlog of surgeries and check-ups or deal with the impending mental health crisis.
It is not enough. It is not good enough, and it is not the future that British people deserve as the reward for their sacrifice and hard work. I put it to the Government that they cannot fix the problem that the country faces, because they are the ones responsible for creating so many of those problems in the first place. That is why this Budget fails to protect the jobs, the livelihoods and the wellbeing of the British people to the degree that they deserve.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) was absolutely right to highlight the second day of a Budget debate as a moment when we can discuss these bigger issues. I join him in thanking nearly 50 colleagues for their contributions, but I am afraid I disagree with him on some of his diagnosis; perhaps, in the course of my remarks, I can explain why.
The hon. Gentleman claimed that the Budget had no ambition. You do not have to listen to me or the Chancellor, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you want to know whether the Chancellor’s Budget had ambition; you can simply listen to the Resolution Foundation, which said:
“This was a big, policy focused, budget. It rightly sought to boost the recovery before turning to fix the public finances, in both cases with a large (potentially too large) focus on Britain’s firms.”
That, I think, is pretty clear. It also said:
“Continuing furlough to September will reduce the rise in unemployment ahead, with the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) expecting it to peak at just 6.5 per cent (down from 7.5 per cent). If realised, this would be”—
I am quoting—
“by far the lowest unemployment peak in any recent recession, despite this being the deepest downturn for 300 years.”
That would include the Labour recession of 2008. So we can only hope and pray that these measures may have something like that effect, but to suggest that they are short of ambition is quite wrong.
If I may, let me just remind the House of the scale of what we are attempting. There are three great themes to the Budget. The first is the need to support people and businesses through this crisis; the second is the need to begin to fix the public finances; and the third is the need to lay the foundations of our future economy. Those are all big issues. As the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde rightly pointed out, those are big matters which we are grappling with, and gripping, from the Dispatch Box and from the Chancellor’s own Budget.
Let us just touch on those. Supporting businesses and people—that would be extending furlough to the end of September. It would be the further grants we have made to the self-employed: the restart grants, a new set of grants designed to help the retail, hospitality, leisure and personal care businesses—I emphasise personal care businesses, such is the very important role they play in our economy—to get going again. The business rates holiday, which has been extended for three months before tapering for another nine months. Extending the VAT cut to 5% for a further six months before tapering it for another six. Continuing our stamp duty cut. Extending universal credit and working tax credits by six months. More money for apprenticeships. New recovery loans. A large package for the arts, culture and sports.
That is one component of this Budget, but of course, as the Chancellor has rightly emphasised, we must engage with the work of fixing the public finances, and that is why we are asking the largest and most profitable firms to pay more in two years’ time by increasing corporation tax. But of course we are giving at the same time, in the shorter run, a super-deduction. I think that is a very thoughtful policy. What that essentially says to those businesses—something like £100 billion is held on corporate balance sheets at the moment in the UK—is that we need to get away from the patterns of underinvestment by business, and this is a way of attempting to move corporate Britain in that direction. It may succeed, it may fail, but it is a very worthwhile attempt to kick-start that business investment that will be foundational, not just to recovery from the pandemic but to our long-term prosperity. Of course we have taken a variety of other measures to support the public finances and then to build the future economy.
The suggestion was made by some colleagues across this Chamber that the Budget was a piecemeal effort; that could not be further from the truth. Forty-five new town deals. The £150 million community ownership fund. The freeports in England. The infrastructure bank. I have been very closely involved with the infrastructure bank, and I can tell you that it will potentially be a very significant institution. It has, of course, its starting capital, but it also has firepower of up to £40 billion. That is not a trivial amount of money, and placing it in Leeds could not be a more emphatic demonstration of the Government’s commitment to levelling up, as the move by not just the Treasury but other Government Departments—the Department for International Trade, BEIS and the MHCLG—to join in a new campus in Darlington has been. As my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) said, that will transform that town, but it also sends a much wider signal: “By their fruits shall ye know them.”
It is all very well talking about these things. Those towns and areas could have been supported by the Labour party over decades and they were not. This Government are stepping forward to make that difference. Of course, the difference will not be just in the investment—the pounds, shillings and pence that are spent there. It will be in the lifting of expectations, the career opportunities, and the possibility of framing a new narrative based on different assumptions about how the world works than just those to be found in London. That is profoundly exciting and important.
Of course, we are talking also about the levelling-up fund, Help to Grow, and a very important development on future breakthrough. I love the fact that we will support not just levelling up but our green investment through the UK infrastructure bank. That will be a very important part of the picture. Let me turn to some of the comments made by colleagues, because they were very well taken. There are many areas where I am not sure that I always agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), but when he said, “Go for growth,” he was absolutely right to emphasise the growth aspects of the Budget.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Simon Jupp) pointed out, rightly, that the Budget delivered for Devon. He was absolutely spot on about that. I disagreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) about corporation tax. He needs to understand, if I may say so, that the rise in corporation tax was the result of many aspects of things. What is noticeable about it, though, is that it did not trigger an enormous increase in business investment. That is one of the reasons why we have adopted this slightly different approach.
I agree very much with the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher), who pointed out the importance of the start-up grants that will support beauty and personal care businesses. He was absolutely right about that. He mentioned the town deal and the east midlands freeport, and rightly so. I agree with the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), who said he was pro our UK infrastructure bank being located in Leeds. He was right to say that. That was not by any means the picture taken by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), who also spoke, but I think that the hon. Member for Leeds North East was right in saying that.
The point that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) made in praising the Chancellor’s honesty and directness when engaging with us struck a chord with me. I think it strikes a chord with many people across the House and in the wider public. My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) pointed out the importance of skills—absolutely right. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) pointed out the value of the super-deduction plan. Again, I thoroughly agree with him.
It was nice to hear my great friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), talk about the importance of her Thames freeport. That is right. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) did not welcome the Liverpool city region freeport, which I think will be a tremendous boost to that area. I think she was wrong to say that. I think it will be widely welcomed, particularly as it gets up and running. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock on that.
I respected very much the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) as she sang the glories of Croydon. That was a beautiful moment in our debate. I very much liked the possibility that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, might, as my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell) invited you, teach the world to sing. I look forward to that very much. Perhaps in a future debate we can be treated to a yodelling intro in the style of the late New Seekers—or am I betraying my age?
My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) was absolutely right. He pointed to the town deal that existed for Ipswich. He pointed to Freeport East, and said, or implied—I am sure he would say—that this is a Government who do what they say. I am very pleased that, in that regard at least, we have been able to deliver for him in a way that we have delivered for many other places across the country that historically have been ignored.
Let me end by thanking hon. Members for their comments. We are trying to do something big here. We are trying to respond to the big issues that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde rightly flagged. He is wrong about what he claims are cliff edges. There is, in each of the cases I have described, a tapering effect in the major reliefs, which is designed to return us to something akin to normality if we can follow the road map and get out of the position we are in. The fact of the matter is that, as the Resolution Foundation pointed out, we are in the worst crisis, the deepest downturn, for 300 years. That is not a fact we can ignore, and it is a fact that it is incumbent on us, across the House and in this Government, to address.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Tom Pursglove.)
Debate to be resumed on Monday 8 March.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, the International Trade Secretary announced that the UK Government and the US Administration have reached an agreement to suspend tariffs on UK products, including Scotch whisky and cashmere. Moray is home to more Scotch whisky distilleries than any other constituencies, and Johnstons of Elgin, which produces outstanding cashmere products. I wonder if there is a way I can put on record how well that decision and announcement have been received in Moray, in Scotland and across the UK, and ask whether the Government have made any representations to Mr Speaker to come to this House to explain what will be done over the next few weeks to get rid of those tariffs not just for four months, but completely.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I can understand why the hon. Gentleman wishes to draw attention to his delight at that announcement and indeed to the great attributes of his constituency. I could tell that many Members showed enthusiasm and their fondness for the products of the distilleries he mentioned. Personally, I am much more of a fan—indeed, an enormous fan—of Johnstons of Elgin.
The hon. Gentleman asks how he might take the matter further here in the House. First of all, obviously, he has succeeded in drawing attention to it through his point of order, which, although not a point of order for the Chair, contained a question to which I can give him a very simple answer. The debate on the Budget continues, as the Whip has just announced, on Monday, and then on Tuesday. On Tuesday 9 March, the title of the debate is “Investment-led recovery and levelling up”. I expect that that debate will be led by the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. That would be an appropriate time, if not for the hon. Gentleman then for some of his colleagues, to raise the matters he wishes to draw to the attention of a wider public.
Business without Debate
British Council and the Integrated Review
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) [V]
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the British Council and the integrated review. I thank Mr Speaker for granting the debate and the Minister for responding. I should declare my interest as chairman of the British Council all-party group.
The UK is often termed a soft power superpower, with recent research showing that the UK is presently the most attractive country in the G20. That is down to our country’s extensive and impressive assets of attraction and influence, which include world-renowned arts and cultural bodies, world-class universities and research—the Oxford-designed vaccine is saving lives in this country and worldwide—and our sporting prowess and ability to put on fine spectacles, such as the 2012 Olympics and, no doubt, the 2022 Commonwealth games, but it is also down to our respected national and international institutions.
I know that the Foreign Secretary and the Minister are aware that the British Council is one of those great institutions. Since the 1930s, it has been promoting British culture and the English language abroad, as well as facilitating cultural exchanges and building trust between the UK and other countries. Along with the BBC World Service, it is one of the jewels in the crown of British soft power, and few Departments do not directly benefit from its work. Indeed, research shows that participation in cultural relations activity with the British Council increases the proportion of people who say they trust the UK by more than a quarter—26%. Those who say they trust the UK are twice as likely to trade, visit, study or do business with our country than those who do not.
Soft power is usually defined as the art of persuading and attracting people to “want what you want”, but despite the consensual approach it requires, it is becoming an increasingly contested area. In order for the UK to retain its lead in this important arena, and in the competition for global influence, it is crucial that we act strategically and also strengthen our soft power assets and offering. The integrated review, which is due to report shortly, is considering all aspects of our international relations—foreign policy, defence, security and international development. As an ex-soldier with the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, a regiment that Mr Speaker knows well, I fully appreciate the need for strong defence. Despite the recent welcome increases in the defence budget, I believe we need to spend even more in this uncertain world and certainly not reduce our infantry numbers, but proper financial support for our soft power assets is also vital. The Ministry of Defence agrees. It understands that:
“The best way to not get into a conflict is to avoid one in the first place by understanding each other’s issues”.—[Official Report, 1 February 2021; Vol. 688, c. 674.]
Those were the words of the Defence Secretary when I raised the issue of the British Council with him recently during Defence questions. War should always be the measure of last resort.
In our report of October 2020, the all-party group made clear our recommendation that there should be a soft power strategy at the heart of the integrated review, providing our assets of influence parity with other hard power assets, so that they are able to complement one another. The report also recommended that our soft power assets should continue to operate independently, as assets of influence are most effective when the engagement they deliver has a value for its own sake. Allowing these assets to act independently and authentically boosts their effectiveness—their efficacy; everyone knows that Russia Today and the Confucius Institutes are instruments of Russian and Chinese state power, and they lack effectiveness, value and credibility as a consequence. While alignment with Britain’s foreign policy objectives is essential, operationally, soft power assets such as the British Council should be free to develop and implement their own strategies, drawing on their skills, insight and expertise derived from decades of experience.
Inevitably, there is also a need to sustain and enhance our international engagement with appropriate funding. In recent years, the British Council has ensured its grant-in-aid funding from the Government stretches far, and has used the surplus from its commercial activities to support and maintain its activities abroad. Members may not be aware that in normal times the British Council receives only 15% of its income from the state, whereas its French, German and Japanese equivalents receive 48%, 62% and 65% respectively.
The coronavirus pandemic has been hard for the British Council, as almost all of its commercial activity, and its associated income, has understandably come to a halt and will not restart substantially for some time. As in other areas, it must be said that the Government have been supportive, and my understanding is that the British Council is now on firmer footing than was feared even a few months ago when insolvency was a very real risk. Nevertheless, I also understand that discussions are ongoing and that many options are on the table. Therefore, as the Government consider our international engagement in the integrated review, I urge them to think strategically about our soft power and take the long view rather than short-term decisions, which, in coming years, we may regret. In particular, the Government and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office especially should reflect on the fact that if the British Council ceases to have a presence in a given country, it is not only unlikely that a presence would be easily re-established, but that such a move also leaves space for other countries which will be sure to notice and fill the vacuum, and not all those countries may be friendly to our own.
I am confident that Members across the House, especially those active in the all-party group that I chair, will be deeply concerned by a decision to reduce the British Council’s network, which is a vital part of building the close long-term relationships in which the organisation specialises and from which the whole UK profoundly benefits. Furthermore, a retreat on the global stage is difficult to square with the Government’s ambitions for global Britain, and quite rightly so. Overall, I agree with the Defence Secretary’s assessment that there is not enough of the British Council around the world. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary and the Minister will also share that opinion, and I look forward to hearing their confirmation of this when the Minister responds to this address and debate.
Once again, I urge the Minister to do all he can to ensure that soft power is at the heart of the integrated review. In this year of UK leadership of the G7 and the COP26 environmental talks, the Government should enhance and capitalise on our soft power strengths to preserve our role as a global leader and broker on the world stage and fully realise the ambitions of global Britain.
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) for securing this debate on the British Council and the integrated review. May I use this opportunity to pay tribute to him for his work as chairman of the British Council all-party group, particularly as he referenced the recent report on influence and the integrated review?
For more than 85 years, the British Council has been the UK’s international organisation for education and cultural relations. It is a crucial part of the UK’s presence overseas and it is a key soft power asset. It has work in more than 100 countries, reaches 790 million people annually, promoting UK education, arts and culture and, as my hon. Friend referenced, the English language. He also referenced in his excellent speech that the United Kingdom is a soft power superpower. We have huge strengths from sport, culture and creative industries to our world-class higher education system, and the important role that we play internationally in addressing whatever the major issues of the day are. We rank consistently in the top three in leading soft power indices, and we ranked as the most attractive country for young people in the G20 in the British Council’s recent soft-power perception study.
The British Council promotes UK influence and attraction overseas by building long-lasting connections between people. It acts as a force for good—for example, through its work to empower young women in south Asia through English language teaching. It encourages cultural understanding through programmes such as its fantastic seasons of culture and through educational exchanges.
The British Council also fosters connections between higher education institutions and students in the UK and in other countries. I am pleased to note that the council will use the expertise it derived from delivering Erasmus+ to administer the new Turing scheme from September. This will enable a new generation of international students to benefit from the UK’s world-class education system.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) for his presentation. It is always a real nice pleasure to see him again; we look forward to renewing friendships shortly.
It has been said that a state’s credibility and capacity to effect change depends as much on diplomacy and the social and human capital of international networks as it does on gross domestic product or military might. Does the Minister agree that it is essential that our diplomacy should be used to make a difference—as I often ask for—to the lives of those who are oppressed throughout the world?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: it is important that, through our network and posts and through what we do in our embassies and high commissions around the world, as well as through our British Council offices, there is a huge diplomatic effort going on. I appreciate that that is not the principal object of the British Council, but it does add to the UK’s strength of diplomacy. If there are emergencies or crises around the world—sadly we have seen a number of them—the United Kingdom has a strong part to play, and he is absolutely right to raise that.
To continue the theme of that intervention, the council also contributes to our global prosperity and helps to develop favourable conditions for new trade and investment links. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay rightly raised the integrated review. The Government want our foreign policy to deliver for the British people and to be rooted firmly in our national interests, which is why the commitment to deliver a review of foreign, defence, security and development policy was announced in the Queen’s Speech in December 2019.
The integrated review will define the Government’s ambition for the UK’s role in the world and the long-term strategic aims for our national security, foreign and development policy. It will outline the way in which the United Kingdom will be a problem-solving and burden-sharing country, and it will set a strong direction for recovery from covid-19, both here and overseas, so that together we can build back better.
The full conclusions of the integrated review will be published later this month. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay will understand that I do not want to pre-empt the findings, nor how the British Council will feature in the final report, but I would be surprised if soft power does not play a part in it. It is absolutely certain that the FCDO will continue to value the British Council’s role as a contributor to our long-term foreign policy and our development ambitions.
As I set out, the integrated review will map out the UK’s direction for recovery from covid-19. It is important to acknowledge that the British Council has been acutely affected by the pandemic, as my hon. Friend said. At the pandemic’s peak—at its worst—more than 90% of the British Council’s teaching and exam centres were forced to shut, with a huge impact on the organisation.
We have worked hard to provide the British Council with additional support at a time of strain on public finances. Last March, the Department provided £26 million of emergency funding, as well as providing half of the council’s grant-in-aid funding up front. We will also provide up to £145 million in loans to ensure that the British Council is able to continue to operate through this exceptionally difficult time. We will provide further financial support for future restructuring plans to enable the British Council to rebuild its commercial surpluses.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am extremely grateful to the Minister and am very encouraged by everything he has said so far. Does he agree that, despite the covid-19 pandemic forcing us all to move into the virtual world, the physical footprint of organisations such as the British Council must be maintained and restored, because in international competitive environments, where we leave a vacuum, other countries with less benign intentions will be all too ready to fill it?
Nigel Adams
My right hon. Friend is right to raise that issue. The footprint of the British Council is huge globally. If he is referring to potential office closures, no decisions have been taken. Clearly, the British Council is operationally independent in that regard. We will work and are working extremely closely with the council to ensure that any negative impact on its work is minimised as much as possible.
Despite the hardship endured throughout the pandemic, the British Council has continued to innovate and it has adapted to digital delivery. I understand the point of my right hon. Friend’s intervention. Previously, the digital footprint was nowhere near what it is now in terms of delivering the English language. Currently, more than 80,000 students are learning English online.
The British Council has also been able to deliver events online. An example of that is the UK-Italy season of culture, which was the first of its kind. Fifty virtual events have been held for hundreds of cultural professionals. I was delighted to take part in the UK in Japan season earlier this year, although very sadly I was unable to get to Japan for obvious reasons. I was able to visit digitally, and I had the pleasure of taking part in an online discussion with leading figures from the UK and Japanese cultural sectors. It is a credit to the British Council that it has been able to continue its vital work throughout this period. It demonstrates the resilience of our soft power institutions.
We have ensured that the British Council will be on a steady footing for the future, so that it can continue delivering core work across arts and culture, the English language and, importantly, education. As part of the spending review settlement for 2021-22, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will provide £189 million of grant-in- aid funding, of which £150 million is official development assistance.
The British Council delivers key soft power benefits for the UK, as I have said, through its networks and expertise. It ensures UK influence through its programming. It attracts students and visitors to the UK and, through its work on the ground with communities and young people, it helps to secure global co-operation, as referenced in the intervention by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
The full conclusions of the integrated review will set out the UK’s vision for the next decade. It will be based on our values and grounded in the UK national interest. I have no doubt that the British Council will continue to play a vital role, and the FCDO will continue to support it as one of our most valuable soft power institutions.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I appreciate that the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) finds it difficult to be isolated behind his screen. I am afraid that it is just not possible for him to come back in or to intervene on the Minister as he normally would, were he here in the Chamber. As a consolation prize, I am going to give him the prize for the best background, because it is closest to the colour of the Chamber.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Magnox Decommissioning Contract: Holliday Inquiry
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
On 27 March 2017, the then Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), informed the House of the defective procurement between 2012 and 2014 of the contract for the clear-up of the 12 Magnox sites, of the decision taken to settle with unsuccessful bidders following a successful legal challenge, and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority’s decision to terminate the contract on the grounds that a material change had arisen to the specification on which bidders were invited in 2012 to tender.
The Secretary of State undertook to investigate fully and expose the reasons behind these failures so as to avoid the same mistakes being made in the future. In order to achieve this, he appointed Mr Steve Holliday to chair an independent, non-statutory inquiry. Mr Holliday’s report, copies of which have been laid in the House today, delivers on that commitment.
I am grateful to Mr Holliday and his team for the comprehensive and rigorous work of this inquiry, which is reflected in this report. The team has reviewed tens of thousands of documents to get to the truth, and it is only through this diligence that we can now confidently learn from the mistakes of the past.
The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is charged with the delivery of a range of challenging, complex and safety-critical activities, across Magnox and the other sites in its estate. Since it was established under the Energy Act 2004, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has driven a significant step-change in the decommissioning of the UK’s legacy nuclear sites.
The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has already acted upon the inquiry’s interim findings that were published in October 2017 and significant improvements have been put in place. This includes strengthening of its commercial and legal capabilities and the introduction, with Government support, of a board-level programme and projects committee. My Department has already taken action to improve its own oversight of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority by strengthening the capacity and capability of the team in BEIS that provides the sponsorship function and also by appointing a director from UK Government Investments on to the board as a Government shareholder representative.
The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority will need to continue to develop to become a more efficient, effective and resilient organisation that continues to drive transformation on the ground and to deliver value for money for the taxpayer. I will be looking to the organisation’s chair, chief executive and the other board members to demonstrate that, where they have not already done so, they will respond fully, effectively and in a timely manner to the findings of this report. There are also findings and recommendations for my Department and UK Government Investments as well as for the Government more widely which we will consider with great care.
It is my intention that the Government and the NDA will publish formal responses to the inquiry chair’s recommendations later this year.
[HCWS820]
Covid-19 Update
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment (Nadhim Zahawi)
The lockdown has reduced social contact and, as such, the numbers of covid-19 cases, hospital admissions and death rates have reduced significantly but continue to remain high across the country. As of 25 February, the weekly case rate for all ages in England is on average 97.1 per 100,000, and 65.2 per 100,000 for people aged 60 and over. Overall positivity for England is 4.3%, with rates continuing to remain higher than desired across the whole country. These figures remain high indicating that we are not yet ready to ease further restrictions immediately from an epidemiological perspective.
Data indicates that the number of patients in hospital with covid-19 across England has reduced to 10,765 and mechanical ventilation bed occupancy is 1,658 (as of 1 March). Sadly, between 15 February and 21 February there have been a total of 2,421 covid-19 related deaths in England, within 28 days of a positive covid-19 test. The number of deaths within 28 days of a positive test has fallen and now reflect levels seen at the end of October. The coronavirus England briefing, 4 March 2021, is available here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-england-briefing-4-march-2021
The vaccine rollout continues to be a success for the UK. As of 2 March, over 20.4 million people across the UK have now received their first dose of a covid vaccine—equal to over a third of the adult population, and over 840,000 people have now received their second dose of a covid vaccine. Daily updates on vaccines doses are available here:
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations
On 22 February, the Prime Minister announced a four-step roadmap to move England out of the current national lockdown. The Government will take a cautious approach to easing restrictions which is guided by data. The measures set out for 8 March prioritise the return of face-to-face education in schools and colleges.
The full roadmap publication can be found at the following link: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/963491/COVID-19_Response_-_Spring_2021.pdf
Progression to the next step of the roadmap will be guided by data, and not dates. There will be at least five weeks between the steps in the roadmap: four weeks for the data to show the impact of the previous easing; and one week’s notice for the public and businesses ahead of future changes.
Before taking each step, the Government will review the latest data on the impact of the previous step against four tests.
1. The vaccine deployment programme continues successfully
2. Evidence shows vaccines are sufficiently effective in reducing hospitalisations and deaths in those vaccinated.
3. Infection rates do not risk a surge in hospitalisations which would put unsustainable pressure on the NHS
4. Our assessment of the risks is not fundamentally changed by new variants of concern.
[HCWS825]
Healthy Weight Inquiry
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
Last year, in response to growing numbers across the country living with excess weight and obesity, the Government published our new strategy, “Tackling obesity: empowering adults and children to live healthier lives”. Worryingly, during the covid-19 pandemic, evidence has shown that people with obesity are more likely to be admitted to hospital, to an intensive care unit and, sadly, to die compared to those of a healthy body weight. This is as well as being at a heightened risk of other diseases such as diabetes, heart disease and some cancers.
So today I am delighted to announce that the Government are committing an additional £100 million over 2021-22 to support people living with obesity, to lose weight and maintain a healthier lifestyle.
More than £70 million will be invested in weight management services available through the NHS and local authorities. The funding announced today will mean up to 700,000 adults have access to support that can help them to lose weight, from access to digital apps, weight management groups or individual coaches, to specialist clinical support. This funding will also support GPs and other health professionals to help make weight management an integral part of routine care. It will encourage clinicians to have conversations about weight with their patients and enable them to refer patients to new services.
£30 million will be used to fund a variety of initiatives that will help individuals maintain a healthy weight. This includes providing access to the free NHS 12-week weight loss plan app and continuing the successful Better Health marketing campaign to motivate people to make healthier choices. Some of the funding will go towards improving services and tools to support healthy growth in early years and childhood. This will assist up to 6,000 children, and their families, to grow, develop and maintain a healthier weight whilst providing many more with advice on lifestyle changes to promote a healthy weight.
Evidence suggests that people who have access to structured weight management services are more successful in losing weight than people who try to manage alone. Losing weight reduces the risk of developing diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease and some cancers. This funding will support a breadth of new services so that people can find an approach that works for them.
I am also very pleased to announce that Sir Keith Mills, who has pioneered reward programmes through Airmiles and Nectar points, has been appointed to advise on developing a new approach, “Fit Miles”, to support people to eat well and move more, using incentives and rewards.
Drawing on a wealth of experience and best practice from around the world, Sir Keith will support the Government to develop and test innovative approaches with public and private partners that use incentives and rewards to help people make healthier choices.
This additional funding will complement other policies announced in last year’s obesity strategy that will change the wider environment and empower people to make the healthier choices. From restricting advertisements for food and drinks high in fat, salt and sugar, banning unhealthy promotions and consulting on alcohol calorie labelling, to requiring large businesses to provide calorie information—these actions are helping us all make healthier choices.
The Department of Health and Social Care is working closely with NHS England and Improvement and Public Health England to ensure this programme of funding helps those who need it most. This funding will support people across the country achieve a healthier lifestyle. The Department of Health and Social Care will provide further detail on this programme of work in the coming weeks and months.
[HCWS823]
Home Office Funding: 2020-21
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
Net cash requirement for the year exceeds that provided by the main estimate, and is within that provided by the supplementary estimate. The supplementary estimate has not yet received Royal Assent.
The Contingencies Fund advance is required in order to meet commitments until the supplementary estimate receives Royal Assent, at which point the Home Office will be able to draw down the cash from the Consolidated Fund in the usual way, to repay the Contingencies Fund advance.
Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £1,250,000,000 will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Home Office. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £1,250,000,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
[HCWS821]
Changes in Immigration Rules
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department is today laying before the House a statement of changes in immigration rules.
We have made a change to the immigration rules which will open the new graduate route to enable international students to remain in the UK to work, or look for work, for two years (three years for doctoral students) after they have completed their studies. The route will open on 1 July 2021. All international students who have successfully completed a degree (or other qualifying course) at undergraduate level or above at a higher education provider with a track record of compliance, and who have valid student (or tier 4) permission, will be able to apply. The doctorate extension scheme (DES) will close when the graduate route opens. The introduction of this route, which was announced in September 2019, will significantly improve the UK’s offer to international students.
We are making changes to accommodate the launch of the new graduate route. The first change is to expand the definition of a new entrant to include those switching from the graduate route. Time spent in the graduate route will count towards the maximum period of four years for which a person can be considered a new entrant. We are also making a change so those previously on the student or graduate routes, who make a short visit to the UK, do not disqualify themselves from being considered a new entrant.
We are also giving effect to some of the recommendations made by the Migration Advisory Committee in its review of the shortage occupation list (SOL) in September 2020. We are adding eight occupations in the health and care sector as well as modern language teachers to the UK-wide SOL. We are removing chefs from the SOL, although they will continue to be eligible for the skilled worker route due to the expanded skills threshold.
In addition, we are accepting the recommendation to add deck hands on large fishing vessels and vent chicken sexers, where those occupations meet experience requirements, to the list of occupations which are eligible for the skilled worker route.
We are updating the salary thresholds to include a minimum hourly rate to safeguard against employers who may require employees to work longer hours to make up for the lower rates of pay. We are including a transitional arrangement for those already on the skilled worker route in a job paying less than the minimum (£10.10 per hour) to avoid anyone losing their job as a result of the change.
We are making a change to prevent employers from reducing their skilled worker salaries below the level of tradeable points which have been assessed and awarded by the Home Office. If a sponsor wishes to reduce a salary based on a different set of tradeable points, a new application will be required. This ensures the Home Office has assessed and confirmed that the skilled worker continues to meet the requirement of the route.
We are expanding the academic technology approval scheme to include those coming to the UK under a sponsored work route to work in an occupation which includes postgraduate research in an academic environment, in certain sensitive subjects where an individual’s knowledge could be used in programmes to develop advanced conventional weapon technology, weapons of mass destruction (WMD), or their means of delivery. This change is designed to protect UK research from exploitation and from inadvertently supporting the proliferation of WMD or advanced conventional weapon technologies.
Some adjustments are being made to the EU settlement scheme (EUSS) and the EUSS family permit. These will ensure their continued operability and the full implementation of the citizens’ rights agreements beyond the 30 June 2021 deadline for applications to the EUSS by those EEA citizens and their family members resident in the UK by the end of the transition period. By 31 January 2021, more than 5 million applications to the EUSS had been received and more than 4.5 million grants of status had been issued.
We are making changes to the global talent route to enable applicants who have reached the pinnacle of their careers to bypass the endorsement requirement and instead qualify if they have received a prestigious prize. An initial list of prizes have been identified and agreed by the endorsing bodies for the route based on their expert opinion and represent the leading awards in their respective fields.
Applicants meeting this requirement will not be required to apply for endorsement, which should expedite the application process. In all other aspects, the requirements and conditions applying to individuals relying on a prestigious prize will be consistent with those who qualify using an exceptional talent endorsement, including having a three year qualifying period for settlement and identical conditions applied to their permission.
There are currently two separate schemes to assist current and former locally employed staff (LES) in Afghanistan: the ex-gratia scheme (EGS) and the intimidation policy. The existing intimidation policy is available to any current or former Afghan LES who have been employed directly by the UK Government in Afghanistan since 2001, from the first day of their employment, regardless of their role, job or length of service. This is being replaced with the Afghan relocation and assistance policy (ARAP) for current and former Afghan LES to reflect the changing security situation in Afghanistan and the risk faced by current and former LES there. The EGS will continue to operate without change until the closing date of 30 November 2022 already set out in the immigration rules.
The ARAP moves away from the present policy model which is based on the investigation of alleged cases of intimidation and requires discrete evidence, and into an assessment-oriented approach. This will be grounded in a recognition that the situation in Afghanistan has evolved and poses a latent threat to many current and former LES in particular roles. Other assistance, e.g. internal moves in-country and bespoke security advice, will still be available where appropriate and reflects that not all LES are able or willing to relocate.
An amendment is being made to clarify the grounds for refusal policy intention that permission may only be refused or cancelled on the basis of rough sleeping where the person has repeatedly refused offers of support and engaged in persistent antisocial behaviour.
Finally, a change is being made to Appendix Hong Kong British national (Overseas) which will allow those on the British national (Overseas) route to apply to vary their conditions to have their no recourse to public funds condition lifted where they are able to demonstrate they are destitute or at imminent risk of destitution.
[HCWS822]
State Pension Correction Exercise
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
This statement provides an update to the House on uplifts to the state pension, which has been a matter of parliamentary interest since 2020.
We are committed to making sure that those people found to have been underpaid state pension receive the money they are rightly entitled to.
We became aware of issues with state pension under-payments in 2020 and we took immediate action to investigate the extent of the problem. This is an issue that dates back many years across successive Governments.
Rectifying these cases is a priority for the Department and we will do it as quickly as possible.
From August 2020 to January 2021 the Department carried out a number of complex scans of legacy computer systems that analysed many millions of state pension records. The scans identified cases requiring further investigation.
These cases can be categorised into the following groups:
People who are married or in a civil partnership who reached state pension age before 6 April 2016 and may be entitled to a category BL uplift based on their partner’s national insurance contributions.
Following a change in the law in 2008, when their spouse became entitled to a state pension, some people should have had their basic state pension automatically reviewed and uplifted. Underpayments occurred in cases when this did not happen.
People who have been widowed and their state pension was not uplifted to include amounts they are entitled to inherit from their late husband, wife or civil partner.
People who have not been paid category D state pension uplift as they should have been from age 80.
For each group of individuals affected, DWP IT systems produce an electronic prompt to consider if an individual’s state pension amount should be increased. The prompt requires DWP staff to take further manual action and, in some cases, this did not take place.
Following the scan activity, the Department formally commenced a correction exercise on 11 January 2021, clerically examining each of the cases identified through the scans. We have already reallocated a number of staff onto this work and are exploring urgently what else we can do to speed up the process.
Given the complexity of the work, it can take time to assess the most complex cases. This work involves a thorough examination of the state pension payments, and consideration of any changes to the individual’s circumstances since the original state pension award was made, to establish if an underpayment has occurred.
Where underpayments are identified, the Department will contact the individual to inform them of the changes to their state pension amount and of any arrears payment they will receive in accordance with the law.
The Department’s current estimate of the total costs of repaying these arrears is £2.7 billion. There will also be increased expenditure on corrected live cases of around £90 million per year on average in the coming years. This estimate is based on the system scans and analysis of DWP administrative data. As more information becomes available from the correction exercise, we will refine our estimates.
In addition to the formal correction exercise, the Department is continuing to review thoroughly all state pension records where an individual has contacted the Pension Service.
The Government are fully committed to ensuring that any historical errors, unaddressed by previous Governments, are put right as quickly as possible.
I will update Parliament as the correction exercise progresses.
[HCWS824]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering, except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down, and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
The first business is a Question for Short Debate on the steps Her Majesty’s Government are taking to promote anti-slavery projects throughout the Commonwealth. The time limit for this debate is one hour. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, is on the call.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I suggest that we adjourn for two minutes while we make sure that the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, can hear us and we can hear him.
Anti-slavery Projects: Commonwealth
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Chidgey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to promote anti-slavery projects throughout the Commonwealth
Lord Chidgey (LD) [V]
My Lords, slavery is not a relic of history. It remains embedded in communities and economies throughout the world. Not so long ago, in Liberia, I was in discussions with a development project officer in the north of the country, close to the Sierra Leone border. Liberia’s origins as an independent state are from resettled freed slaves from the United States in the 1800s, courtesy of the American Colonization Society. I was shocked, therefore, when the official calmly recounted that, as a young girl, his aunt had been captured by marauding tribesmen and taken into slavery in a neighbouring country, only to return home some years later, having travelled hundreds of miles to get there—apparently a matter-of-fact, everyday misadventure.
This debate confines itself to anti-slavery projects in the Commonwealth, focusing in the main on Asia and Africa. The continent of Africa is one of the regions where contemporary slavery is most rife. Slavery in the Sahel region and the Horn of Africa exists among racial and cultural boundaries in Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Chad and Sudan. Slavery exists in other forms in parts of Ghana, Benin, Togo and Nigeria. Human trafficking and the enslavement of children as child soldiers and child labourers takes place from Togo, Benin and Nigeria to Gabon and Cameroon. According to Anti-Slavery International, modern-day slavery in Africa includes the exploitation of subjugate populations, even when their condition is not technically called slavery. To quote the society:
“People are sold like objects, forced to work for little or no pay and are at the mercy of their ‘employers’.”
Debt slavery or bonded labour is the most common method of enslavement, with more than 8 million people bonded to labour illegally. Some 90% of the practice in the world is prevalent mainly in south Asia, even though most countries in the region are party to the UN convention on the abolition of slavery. Bonded labour has produced goods ranging from frozen shrimp to bricks, diamonds and clothing. Estimates vary widely, with figures of between 20 million and 40 million workers, mainly children, working through debt bondage in India. Some 60,000 brick kiln workers are employed in south Asia, with 70% in India and the 6,000 or so kilns in Pakistan alone. Total revenue from brick kilns in south Asia is thought to be some $15 billion. The International Labour Organization estimates that more than $51 billion is made annually in the exploitation of workers through debt bondage. The fair trade industry, which claims to eradicate modern-day slavery, is estimated by some to exceed $2 billion annually, but that is only a fraction of the total revenue.
The excellent briefing note produced by the House of Lords estimates that there are some 16 million victims of modern slavery living in the Commonwealth, which equates to one in every 150 citizens. The Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, the CHRI, in Delhi, stresses in its report Eradicating Modern Slavery that only 10 years remain to fulfil the London CHOGM commitment to meet SDG target 8.7 of ending modern slavery by 2030. The CHRI stresses that the Covid-19 pandemic has exposed the weaknesses in the system for protection and the vulnerability of those most at risk. The CHRI is calling on the Commonwealth Secretariat to take a lead in the interests of the 16 million Commonwealth citizens trapped in modern slavery.
At this point, it is worth stressing the scale of the task. According to the CHRI, of the 54 Commonwealth member states, only 29 have national guidelines on how to identify victims, 35 have criminalised forced labour and just 18 have criminalised forced marriage. All 54 have gaps in implementation. The Lords Library briefing notes that the CHRI claims there has been inadequate action by Commonwealth Governments, and that overall progress is far too slow. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on the CHRI claims.
The Commonwealth Human Rights Unit has responded to the 2018 London CHOGM call for effective measures to end modern slavery. It is working with member states’ missions in Geneva, the CHRI in Delhi and the UN special rapporteur on eradicating contemporary forms of slavery. The Commonwealth Secretariat’s strategic plan embeds the CHOGM mandate, committing it to protecting women, girls and other vulnerable groups in member states from violence and other harmful practices.
The Global Fund to End Modern Slavery recognises the UK as a global leader in the fight to end modern slavery, as a founding partner in creating the fund. It is undertaking innovative work throughout the Commonwealth, including in India, Bangladesh, Kenya and Uganda. It has called for a reassessment of how the UK can lead an increase in global collaboration and resourcing to prevent a huge surge in modern slavery as the pandemic ends.
The CPA UK’s four-year multilateral modern slavery project, funded by the UK, provides a welcome signpost. The project aims to strengthen democracy, parliamentary oversight and sustainability in the Commonwealth. It aims to equip, enable and encourage partners and their members to make positive impacts in three crucial areas: public accounts committees, women in parliament and climate security. The CPA UK’s work plans to support good governance and stimulate parliamentary activity in areas of inclusive and representative democracy, effective scrutiny and accountability.
The assessment of the UK’s approach to tackling modern slavery through the aid programme by the Independent Commission on Aid Impact takes us a stage further. Under the guidance of the commissioner, Sir Hugh Bayley, the ICAI report of October 2020 assessed that the Government played a prominent role in raising the profile of modern slavery globally, but that our work in developing countries had limited long-term impact, did not build on existing international efforts and experience, and failed to adequately involve survivors. Overall, the ICAI assessment was amber-red.
The ICAI set out its findings in detail, together with a list of five recommendations, three of which the Government accept and a further two they partially accept. This is a heartening response from the Government, stressing their commitment to defeating slavery. Investment in the Modern Slavery Innovation Fund has been reviewed, and confirmation sought that it is working in sectors and with partners in ways that are known to make a difference. The Government confirm that UK aid is governed by the International Development Act, which places a duty to promote gender equality through development and humanitarian funding in countries receiving aid.
The Government accept that they need to do more to engage survivors in the design, implementation and review of the programmes in their modern slavery portfolio. The Government agree that a public statement will help to explain better their international modern slavery objectives, which they plan to take forward and set out this year. With just 10 years left to meet the SDG goal, will the Government strengthen their leadership in the global effort to support the work of the CPA UK, ring-fencing this and other anti-slavery funding from cuts to the aid budget?
Baroness Goudie (Lab) (V)
My Lords, I thank my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, for arranging this debate. It is absolutely necessary in this situation, as we come out of the pandemic.
Many in the developing countries of the Commonwealth have suffered hugely during the pandemic and have been persuaded by traffickers to let their children go and be sold, with false promises of work; body parts are stolen, such as kidneys, eyes and others. People who are involved in slavery never recover and never have a long life.
The Commonwealth must commit to following the money. We know through the McCain Institute, the Global Fund and others that this is a cash industry, and the cash trail can be followed if the will is there. In many cases, as I have mentioned before, the money is offshore, and it is for us as a leading country—we are seen as seventh or eighth in the global economy, and we are at every table—to exert pressure so that cash from trafficking is followed and the traffickers are taken and sentenced. They should be sentenced to prison for what they are doing to those whom they take away. I call on the Government to persuade Commonwealth countries and the Commonwealth to follow the money.
Lord Haselhurst (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Commonwealth charter tells us that
“Parliaments … are essential elements in the exercise of democratic governance.”
The Commonwealth Heads of Government say they are committed to ending modern slavery by 2030, but, alas, progress is very slow. It is therefore essential that Governments are held accountable by their Parliaments, constantly and unremittingly. As a former chair of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, I believe that the CPA is the network by which MPs throughout the Commonwealth can draw strength and encouragement to discuss these issues frankly, which is often the better way, and informally, and to identify means to confront them.
The noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, was right to refer to the CPA UK Modern Slavery Project as a practical example of how this evil can be exposed and curbed. However, if we are to eradicate modern slavery in all its forms, it is a campaign that needs many more hours than one of debate devoted to it.
Baroness D'Souza (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is somehow fitting that Commonwealth Day and International Women’s Day fall on the same date; there is much to celebrate jointly. I am in no doubt that, in the post-Brexit world, where there continues to be much confusion, an alliance as old and trusted as the Commonwealth has much to offer. All countries need friends and allies, and the UK has a ready-made community of 53 nations around the world, which is a precious asset and one to be nurtured.
As noble Lords have already heard, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, of which I am a long-term and proud member, is addressing issues of current concern such as modern slavery, women in Parliament, climate change and the seemingly less important topic of public accounts committees. Never have I been more impressed than when talking with a group of women parliamentarians, convened by the CPA and all members of their respective public accounts committees, who were making real differences in countering corruption, raising the standards of accountability and providing a clear model for what other women can achieve. In these practical workshops the CPA continues to provide an invaluable role and contributes to a change of culture around the world.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, anti-slavery has been a major focus of the Church of England through the Clewer Initiative in this country and through many of our links across the Anglican Communion in Commonwealth countries, where partnership is the key to effective work.
The Anglican Alliance has raised a number of questions and initiatives at United Nations level, but the most powerful agents of change are rooted in local communities in some of the most vulnerable places. It seems to be very important that we hold together the high-level conversations along with local initiatives, where the local networks are often key to the effective rooting-out or identification of perpetrators of modern slavery. I ask the Minister if the Government can use their powers to work in partnership at every level to eradicate this scourge?
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab) [V]
My Lords, development projects are essential to tackling slavery. It is therefore shameful and inhumane that, at this time when more and more boys and girls—particularly girls—around the world could be drawn into slavery because of economic conditions created by the pandemic, the UK is going to brutally reduce the amount of money available for humanitarian projects that empower and educate young women and boys and support refugees.
However, the UK can also support projects that ensure enforcement, as my noble friend Lady Goudie has said. I ask the Minister what action we will take to ensure that there is stronger enforcement at the national, regional and international level to have more prosecutions of those organising slavery and those who assist them?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has withdrawn from the debate, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, on securing this debate ahead of Commonwealth Day on 8 March. The theme for this year’s Commonwealth Day is “Delivering a common future: connecting, innovating and transforming”. Clearly, promoting anti-slavery projects is central to this and a real challenge of our age.
It is dreadful to realise that there are over 40 million victims of modern slavery, forced labour and human trafficking worldwide, and that this number is growing. Our own Commonwealth Parliamentary Association has been active, and, between 2016 and 2020, delivered a four-year project funded by the United Kingdom Government, providing advice and support to Commonwealth legislatures in the pursuit of combating modern slavery, human trafficking and forced labour. This is a good thing.
If I could single out one particular project that the UK is backing, it is the attempt to end forced labour in clothing factories in Bangladesh. This is most worthwhile.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, has a way of highlighting issues which concern the very poorest, and we must be grateful to him because the Commonwealth as an institution needs much more focus and visibility.
While I was on the anti-slavery council I became aware of appalling examples of slavery and trafficking, including among the victims of the caste system which persists in India today. Since then, an enormous amount has been done to ensure that we in the UK are not benefiting from supply chains that exploit those victims, especially child slaves.
The Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner, in her lecture last year, said that half the world’s victims of slavery live in the Commonwealth and called for more UK action on child trafficking. ICAI is not pleased, as we have heard, and the CHRI has a programmed tied to SDG 8.7, which means ending child labour by 2025—there is a challenge. I put my faith in NGOs and faith groups, but civil society has a huge potential to bring about change.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab) [V]
My Lords, heinous acts of slavery go back a long way, perpetrated by power and carried out by persecution. We have redefined slavery in modern terms but it still involves power and persecution in many different forms, and it exists in developed countries such as the UK.
I am pleased that many UK-funded organisations, such as DfID and the CPA, are funding and developing projects to combat modern slavery, including support at government level and, essentially, as the right reverend Prelate said, at grass-roots level, involving NGOs and community projects. I congratulate the many NGOs that are working on the ground, often in difficult and sometimes dangerous circumstances, to combat many kinds of slavery involving local populations.
Can the Minister say briefly how programmes supported by the UK are monitored and evaluated for their impact on the lives of victims of modern slavery? I look forward to his response.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, if we are to try to stop people entering into modern slavery, what encouragement is coming from the Government to make sure people know what is liable to happen to them if they place themselves in debt bondage or the hands of human traffickers? This can be done only by targeted information in the country of origin of such people. Is it being done in a way that they will receive it? What is the strategy for using social media and local broadcasters?
Without targeting the direct options, and saying where people are lied to and where the problems lie, we will not see people remove themselves from such situations. We may not be able to do anything about people being coerced into these situations but we might be able to slow down the numbers of those who think that they are doing it for good economic reasons.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con) [V]
My Lords, I speak as a very proud executive member of our own UK branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association here at Westminster. As we celebrate Commonwealth Day next Monday, we must take special note of its work fostering relationships and sharing experiences and challenges, which of course includes the fight against slavery. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association has, since 1911, brought together the Parliaments of the Commonwealth to better understand and learn from each other.
The UK has been a global leader in the fight to end modern slavery, forced labour and human trafficking. In 2017, the UK Government became a founding partner in creating the Global Fund to End Modern Slavery. Since then, they have been able to leverage the initial UK investment more than fourfold by securing complementary investments from other Governments. Last year, the UK Government published their first modern slavery statement, outlining the steps that the Government have taken to tackle modern slavery in UK operations and supply chains.
I urge the Government to continue to support the eradication of slavery, and I very much look forward to hearing my noble friend the Minister’s response on further promoting anti-slavery throughout the Commonwealth.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I have competed at the Commonwealth Games and I am a trustee of the Commonwealth Sport Foundation. CSF is a new charity that has a number of work pillars, including historical injustice, equal rights and youth empowerment.
The Commonwealth is a third of the world’s population and has a significant number of modern slavery issues. It is exciting that, next year, the Commonwealth Games will be held in Birmingham. The organising committee is committed to this issue, and it is something that I hope further major games will also take on board through their processes.
We should continue to explore the role that the Commonwealth Games Federation, the Commonwealth Sports Foundation and each host city has to educate the athletes, coaches and spectators on this important issue in order not just to broaden the understanding of modern slavery but to identify it and to find solutions.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Jones of Cheltenham, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as the deputy chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation. In this extremely short contribution, I will simply make a practical suggestion regarding modern slavery in supply chains—something we should be clamping down on. My noble friend should look into what the US has done to try to remedy this in respect of what it calls “hot goods”, that is to say goods that are produced by forced labour. They have the following clause in their legislation:
“All goods, wares, articles, and merchandise mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part in any foreign country by convict labor or/and forced labor or/and indentured labor under penal sanctions shall not be entitled to entry at any of the ports of the United States, and the importation thereof is hereby prohibited”.
This seems a very useful idea, and perhaps something that we could still insert in the Trade Bill.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support that suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Randall; it is a good idea. I declare my interest as a trustee of the charity Arise, which I thank for its briefing.
Can the Government commit to a modern slavery strategy in Commonwealth countries that ensures that support focuses on empowering and building the capacity of local civil society groups, such as local police, religious sisters and local government? Just one example would be the Indian-Nepalese border, which is one of the most prolific corridors for human trafficking in the world. In 2018, it was estimated that 50 women alone were trafficked into India a day, and 2,500 children trafficked annually into Bihar, one of five Indian states bordering Nepal. Horrifically, most of these children are headed for the brothels in India.
We should prioritise partnerships that empower and strengthen local communities, which are best placed to ensure sustainable change and to identify victims. It is hard for Governments to prioritise these groups, but we should prioritise building their capacity and commit to supporting small-scale sustainable efforts to end this horrific crime, since they are usually the best catalyst for real and lasting change.
Lord Desai (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will talk about the UK—it is part of the Commonwealth, so I think I am allowed. I was approached by somebody, though only once before coronavirus stopped any further conversation, about the fact that there are people who came here to the UK illegally and are subject to rather severe exploitation. I am sorry that that person did not come back to me, but they made a request as to whether some sort of amnesty could be declared for people who may have entered the UK in that way. They would gain by handing themselves up to the authorities, rather than suffering as they do right now. I do not know whether this is part of the debate at present but I signed up to speak to make sure that it was declared here. I am very happy to talk to the Minister outside the Grand Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno. Lord Roberts, you are on mute; can you unmute? We will come back to the noble Lord at the end if we can.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB) [V]
My Lords, could the Minister say whether there is support in the Government for the calls from the Arise Foundation, a charity of which I am a trustee, for mandatory human rights due diligence and mandatory transparency guidelines through company supply chains?
Building on the UK’s landmark 2015 legislation, and in the spirit of William Wilberforce, we should be spearheading a global Commonwealth campaign to combat modern-day slavery. This should include educational projects to liberate the children of India’s enslaved Dalits and Adivasis, condemned to work in kilns and sweat shops. It could include kite marking of supply chains so that consumers can say no to big brands using African child slaves to mine lithium in the DRC. It could include a Commonwealth-wide boycott of cotton products made by enslaved Uighur labour in Xinjiang. It could also hunt down and fearlessly prosecute the criminals who ruthlessly traffic women and girls.
Almost a third of the world’s population—2.2 billion people—live in Commonwealth countries. By mobilising its people against modern slavery, the Commonwealth could both demonstrate its values and give hope to millions of benighted and downtrodden people.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I go to the typically excellent House of Lords Library briefing for the estimate that 40% of the total number of victims of modern slavery live in the Commonwealth. Not being “political”, it did not make the obvious comparison: only 33% of the world’s population live in the Commonwealth. We have an outsized, disgraceful modern slavery problem in an institution for which we as a nation have a particular responsibility.
Where did the Commonwealth come from? It grew essentially out of the Empire, whose disastrous, genocidal, ecocidal impacts have been buried, hidden and all too often forgotten about. The thesis I put to the Minister is that colonialism and modern slavery are inextricably linked, and tackling the current scourge requires exposing the dark history to the light. Last year, I asked the Minister whether the Government would consider an inquiry into particularly the legacies of African enslavement. I got a one-sentence “no” answer. Will the Minister now reconsider?
Baroness Warsi (Con) [V]
My Lords, the task of adding to this debate in just a minute seems almost impossible so I will keep my remarks just to two questions. First, the anti-slavery work is funded by a number of UK government departments and funds. Can my noble friend say how co-ordinated are the work and the funds across, for a start, the Home Office and the FCDO, but also any other departments that may be involved? Secondly, how do the Government reconcile their strongly held commitment to anti-slavery with their less than enthusiastic support for the genocide amendment that has now been proposed in both Houses in a number of Bills to tackle the appalling treatment of the Uighurs in China?
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD) [V]
Nothing causes more slavery in its consequences than war. One thing we can do is to try to reduce the armaments sold to nations that will then go on to slaughter one another. We know, for instance, that in Yemen we now have 8.4 million people on the brink of slavery and starvation. We see that the UK has now decided to cut its aid budget to Yemen from £164 million to £87 million, while at the same time selling about £638 million-worth of arms to Saudi Arabia, the other country in this dispute. Is there not something we can do to stop ourselves from this trade? Is there not a William Wilberforce now in the Cabinet?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I commend my noble friend Lord Chidgey for bringing this debate to the Grand Committee and commend the work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association UK. I declare an interest in that I supported the CPA’s anti-forced labour project here in the Westminster Parliament and in Ghana. I also declare that I support a project in Sudan and the Horn of Africa, linking in with the Gulf, on human trafficking and forced labour.
Because time is so constrained, I make two points and ask two questions of the Minister. First, the inevitable consequences of Covid mean that the scope for forced labour and trafficking is greatly increased, with the increase in the number of vulnerable women and children, especially those working in markets or domestic labour. Therefore, the unlawful cuts to the UK’s ODA are very regrettable. Secondly, there have been attempts in the Trade Bill to persuade the Government to move on supply chains—in fact, I raised this in our most recent deliberations on that Bill—and I hope that the Government think again.
I have two quick questions, building on one of the points that my noble friend Lord Chidgey asked. Will the Government use their convening power for all Commonwealth countries to work so there is a consistency of definition and application of forced labour legislation? Secondly, will the UK use its chair-in-office transition to Rwanda to make sure that this continues to be a priority area, including for Governments and traditional forms of government and traditional leaders? The convening power of the Commonwealth is to its credit and something that we can ensure goes forward with the new presidency, so there is no gap in any programme that we have discussed today.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, just to pick up the last point by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in relation to the UK’s investment in the Global Fund to End Modern Slavery, it has galvanised political support for legislation in the Commonwealth. I hope that the Minister this afternoon will be able to commit to ongoing work in that regard.
I pick up on a couple of points on domestic legislation, particularly in relation to the supply chain. Dominic Raab, in his Statement on China in January, set out steps on forced labour under the Modern Slavery Act. I therefore ask about progress on those steps and, in particular, in relation to fines for failing transparency obligations. When will we see the necessary legislation? On the extension of transparency requirements to the public sector, when will we see the guidance from the FCDO and Cabinet Office in that regard?
Finally, what is the Minister’s assessment of the impact of the ODA reduction to 0.5% on programmes that encourage anti-slavery legislation across the Commonwealth? How will the Government lead on that priority subject at the CHOGM in Rwanda?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, for tabling this debate and all noble Lords who have spoken, particularly the noble Lord. We have worked together on various issues relating to the Commonwealth, and it is important that we throw a spotlight on this important issue. I agree with my noble friend Lord Haselhurst that one hour was not enough, but I have very much valued the constructive discussions, suggestions and proposals, as well as the questions put today.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, talked of reviving the spirit of William Wilberforce. It is not lost on me that, on every walk past my home to the local village, I pass a sign that says, “William Wilberforce lived here”. It is perhaps apt that a politician who led our country, Theresa May, herself a Wimbledonian, led the campaign domestically to raise the issue of modern slavery, and continues to champion this cause—and I shall continue to work with the right honourable lady in this respect.
Modern slavery is one of those great human rights tragedies of our time; it is an incredibly complex issue that targets the most vulnerable, as we have heard, and Covid-19 has only made things worse. I listened very carefully to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about focusing on support for victims both domestically and abroad, and I shall come on to that in a moment. It is right that we build on what we have learned, be it domestically or through international partners and ensure that this is shared throughout the Commonwealth, also ensuring that those who employ child labour and engage in modern slavery as we term it are held to account and educated in their role in tackling this scourge. A scourge it is, which is why it remains a major priority for the UK Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, suggested a series of steps and in doing so highlighted the opportunities that exist to do so much more. In the time I have I cannot address every specific question or suggestion that he and other noble Lords raised, but I will focus on some of them. I will come back to noble Lords, and I look forward to further discussions, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, suggested, to take various points forward outside this Committee.
It was not customary to hear a contribution from my noble friend Lady Warsi in a minute, but she was nevertheless succinct in asking quite specific questions on governance. I assure her that the Home Office and the FCDO work together regularly at ministerial level and between officials. We are looking at all our programmes across government for further support in this respect. We have appointed both domestic and international envoys to take this forward; there are well-established channels in this respect. My noble friend also mentioned the genocide amendment and supply chains, which I will come on to in a moment.
I pay tribute to and agree in totality with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. The Commonwealth Games provide an incredible opportunity for us to take forward the issues of child labour and modern slavery, but also the benefits that the Commonwealth can bring in working together.
Looking at the Commonwealth and the world as a whole, in 2016 global estimates on modern slavery found that just over 40 million people were victims of modern slavery on any given day somewhere in the world. Of these, 24.9 million people were forced into labour and 15.4 million were living in a forced marriage. As the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, reminded us, one in four were children, and 71% were women. I know that that is a particular focus for the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie. Commonwealth citizens accounted for almost 25 million of that global figure.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that there is so much still to be done to strengthen the work of the Commonwealth, particularly with CHOGM on the horizon and our role in handing over the chairmanship to Rwanda. I assure the noble Lord that I am working very closely with the Rwandan Government. Indeed, only today I spoke to Foreign Minister Biruta about various issues, including the planning for CHOGM later this year.
The International Labour Organization estimates that trade in human beings is worth $150 billion per year, yet just 0.08% of that amount is spent by OECD countries annually on development assistance targeting slavery. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, highlighted the importance of continuing programmes and funding to tackle this, from the perspective not just of the UK but of how we leverage international funding. The sheer staggering scale of human suffering this represents is frankly, bluntly, and, to put it in a very personal way, shameful. There is no other word for it.
Tackling modern slavery was an important part of the Government’s manifesto in 2019 and I assure noble Lords that it will continue to form part of our integrated strategy. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, talked about the legacy of our colonial past, the Commonwealth’s future and specific inquiries. I respect her contribution, but we should also celebrate and recognise the strength of what the Commonwealth is today in 2021. We are learning from our past and our experiences. On a personal note, as someone who has heritage from India and Pakistan, whose wife grew up in Australia, and who now looks after our relationships with south Asia, it is a reflection of the strides we are making not just in government but across society that people enriched by their Commonwealth heritage contribute to the United Kingdom’s progress today.
The new FCDO brings together diplomatic and development expertise. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds talked about the importance of civil society and faith groups. I assure him that, since the creation of the FCDO, I have initiated regular round-table discussions with our faith partners, who are involved directly in humanitarian aid delivery and development programmes, including tackling child labour across different parts of the world.
It is not acceptable that crimes such as modern slavery still exist in the 21st century—I totally agree with noble Lords on that—but the short fact is that they do. As a long-standing champion of the need to tackle the global scourge of modern slavery, including within the Commonwealth, we will continue to play our part. That is why I am proud of the fact that we led on addressing this with our Modern Slavery Act back in 2015.
The noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, talked of the importance of different roles and the creation of the role of the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner. Internationally, we successfully led the way in 2015 by developing and championing the inclusion in the sustainable development goals of a specific target to end modern slavery, which is SDG Target 8.7. However, there is so much still to be done.
At the UN General Assembly, alongside the UN Secretary-General, we launched A Call to Action to End Forced Labour, Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking. This is a strong statement of intent that we will not tolerate modern slavery in our societies. I led the UK campaign in 2018, ahead of the CHOGM in London, to obtain commitments to, and gather endorsements for, the call to action by Commonwealth countries. My noble friend Lord Davies talked of what has been achieved. I can inform him that the call to action, led by the United Kingdom, has to date received 92 endorsements, which is nearly half of all UN members; included within them are 27 Commonwealth countries. In 2018, we committed to more than doubling, to £200 million, our ODA support that is targeted at tackling the root causes of slavery and exploitation.
Many projects exist across the Commonwealth and I will share just a few with noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, talked about effectiveness. The Work in Freedom programme helps to prevent trafficking and exploitation of women working in domestic households and garment factories across south Asia and the Middle East. Bangladesh was mentioned by noble Lords, and that specific programme has so far reached over 470,000 women and girls, including in India and Bangladesh. I know that my noble friend Lord Bourne was very focused on what has been achieved there.
The Inclusion, Accountability and Reducing Modern Slavery Programme in Pakistan raises community awareness on issues of early and forced marriage, and child labour. It supports 450 Aagahi Centres that work on cases of modern slavery, and strengthens government systems within Pakistan for protecting individuals. Meanwhile the Stamping Out Slavery in Nigeria programme is supporting a coalition of actors, including the Government and local civil society, in tackling modern slavery there.
The CPA was rightly mentioned by others, including the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza. I have met and engaged directly with the leadership of the CPA over recent months, including looking at the specific issue of public accounts and the crucial role that the CPA continues to play through its network of 32 parliamentary champions in improving anti-slavery legislation.
We also recognise the crucial role of business. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, alluded to this, as did the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and others. Championing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights is all about responsible business and transparency in global supply chains. Despite the significant economic and health challenges faced by the UK due to the global pandemic and, yes, the challenges we faced on the reduction of ODA, I assure noble Lords that we remain one of the leading aid donors. We also remain committed to using UK support and aid to help tackle modern slavery and human trafficking.
Many other countries within the Commonwealth are taking big steps: India, Australia, Canada, Nigeria, Malawi and Zambia, to name a few. I know that the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, will be interested specifically in the work that we are doing in these countries. Yet the global community, as many noble Lords recognised, is still not on track to meet the challenges in addressing this issue by 2030—and Covid-19 has not helped. We certainly adapted our £20 million global fund to end modern slavery to contribute to the humanitarian cause for garment factory workers and migrants in south-east Asia as Covid-19 hit. Let me also inform noble Lords that we provided a £250,000 grant to the Freedom Fund for its emergency relief. However, we must do well and I assure all noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the right reverend Prelate that we continue to strengthen our work—not just as government to government or with businesses, but with charities, faith groups and civil society.
The noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, among others, pointed to the ICAI report. We have accepted three recommendations fully and two others in part. We continue to work closely with ICAI in this respect. I take on board what the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said about how we can look in-country. As the Covid-19 challenge lifts, I hope that through visits we will be able to look to in-country programmes, including those that he suggested with organisations such as the police, to see how we can strengthen internal mechanisms across the Commonwealth.
In the short time that he had, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, among others, including the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, and my noble friend Lord Randall made practical suggestions on the strengthening of supply chains. Yes, we have made announcements. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked a series of questions in this respect. If I may, I will revert to him in writing on the specifics, but work is under way through the FCDO and the Home Office on many of the questions that he raised.
We hope that the next Global Conference on Child Labour, to be held in South Africa in 2022, will be a further opportunity to unite Commonwealth countries, as CHOGM will be. This year, as many noble Lords will know, marks the UN International Year for the Elimination of Child Labour, which provides yet another important opportunity.
I fear that I am one who has perhaps betrayed the clock by running some 30 seconds over my allocated time. However, given the strength and quality of the practical insights provided by noble Lords, this will continue to be a focus for the Government, and an area that we will return to in future. Only by joining forces and working together will we be able to eradicate these crimes. We have heard about Wilberforce, but it was Kipling who urged us to
“fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run”.
I believe today’s contributions have done that.
NHS: Staff Numbers after Covid-19
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Clark of Windermere
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have for the number of National Health Service staff after the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
The time limit for this debate is one hour.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I count myself very fortunate to be introducing this Question. This is an invaluable parliamentary means whereby questions can be asked in a more discursive manner than usual and the Minister will listen and, we hope, provide answers. I shall make a couple of obvious general points.
The people of Britain love the NHS, as has been seen during the Covid-19 pandemic, but there were problems prior to the pandemic. I shall make three basic points to set the scene. The NHS is the fifth-largest employer in the world, yet we spend less on health as a percentage of our GDP than almost every other developed country in the world. To compound the situation domestically, there was a shortage of hospital beds prior to the pandemic. Indeed, we are bottom of the Euro league for intensive care beds, with 7.3 beds per 100,000 of population, compared with the best, Germany, with 33.8 beds—what a difference. Thus, prior to the previous cuts we were ill-prepared, and there have been too many cuts under the austerity measures of the early 21st century.
I am certain in my own mind that it was due only to the dedication, brilliance and sacrifice of NHS staff that we got through—and I mean all staff, from the top consultant to the most junior worker. And it has been at tremendous cost to many of them in stress, burnout and mental health challenges. We owe them a tremendous amount and I hope that, in his summing up, the Minister will confirm that this will be recognised when we have won the battle with Covid-19.
I will begin with nurses. Over the years, the Minister must have become tired of me pursuing him on the issue of nurses. I remain concerned. Currently, we are at least 40,000 nurses short. Over the next seven years we will face a shortfall of 108,000 nurses. I must ask the Minister very bluntly: will HMG drastically increase the training of fully qualified nurses? What discussions has he had to ensure the provision of the educational means to do so?
The Royal College of Nursing has conducted surveys and expressed deep concern about the exodus of qualified staff following the pandemic. I share that concern. Will the Minister push ahead and prepare plans to deliver what is necessary to persuade staff that they are valued, and to retain them in the NHS? According to the RCN survey, 35% of nurses are contemplating leaving the profession within the year. Will HMG also provide the NHS with the means to fund occupational health and psychological support, and, if necessary, breaks beyond annual leave?
Nurses are due a pay rise. They are currently worse off than they were a decade ago. Will HMG ensure that the upcoming pay settlement is really meaningful and commensurate with the ever-rising skills of nurses?
I turn now to GPs. If we are to meet the demands and expectations of the general public, we will have to increase the number of doctors, especially GPs. Does the Minister accept that we are still suffering in the training of doctors from the austerity years, over which his party presided? In spite of the modest increases of late to close the gap, does he accept that we face a shortfall of 7,000 GPs in the next two years? As a starter, we need to double the number of medical school places from 7,500 to 15,000 by the end of the decade.
I will move on from numbers to talk about processes. I am concerned about the reluctance of younger practitioners to enter general practice in many parts of the country, leaving it often to only elderly GPs to carry on as single practitioners, supplemented by agencies and bank locums. Do the Government really feel that that is satisfactory and sustainable?
I have a personal problem with this in Windermere at the surgery I am registered with. It operates from a fine purpose-built building but has been without a permanent GP for a number of years. It functions largely due to the skill, experience, training and commitment of nurse practitioners and other staff with specialist skills. Their work is supplemented by local doctors—if they can be persuaded to come. Five years ago, the practice was leased to a private company, OneMedical Group, 80 miles away in Leeds. Last autumn it took advantage of a break clause in its lease and surrendered it, and we are back to square one; it is far from a satisfactory situation.
The key issue is that younger GPs do not wish to buy into practices which might involve hundreds of thousands of pounds. I know a number of practices in Cumbria have had to undertake severe reorganisation and mergers simply to survive. In a letter to the Guardian on 1 March, a GP who has worked in the NHS for over 30 years made the same point, that younger GPs will not buy in to practices. I ask the Minister the most critical question that I am asking today: is this model, requiring such large financial commitments by individuals, suitable to the 21st century? Would the department do a preliminary examination of this problem?
The pandemic has changed so much, and we were found wanting. The years of austerity caused serious damage to our NHS. Only because of the beliefs of our NHS staff are we getting through it. One thing is clear: there is increased demand on our health service. There will have to be much change, including permanently increasing spending. The Government will have to recognise that what may have worked in the past may not do so in future. Models which have been sacrosanct may need to be examined and, if necessary, changed. All this is essential, with a radical White Paper bringing health and social care together. I ask the Minister: are the Government up to it?
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD) [V]
My Lords, the NHS workforce has been working flat out for a year now. Their dedication, professionalism and personal sacrifices have inspired the whole nation. Vacancies stood at over 100,000 before the pandemic. The NHS now faces a huge backlog of operations with an exhausted workforce and increasing levels of sickness absence. Moving forward, a fully funded workforce plan is critical and must take priority over reforms to NHS structures.
I recently spoke to two very senior nurses working in London ICUs, who told me that what they need more than anything was time off for recovery and additional nurses to provide pre-pandemic levels of patient care.
The recent report of the Public Services Committee, looking at the lessons of Covid-19, received compelling evidence that other European countries have considerably more critical care beds per head of population than we do. Does the Minister agree that, if the pandemic has taught us one thing, it is the need to adopt the rainy day principle and build spare capacity in for future crises?
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, I recognise that the Government want to address the issue of the NHS clinical workforce. The problem is not the ambition, but in having a clear long-term strategy to achieve this. Does the Minister agree that previous attempts have failed? The intensity and stressful nature of the work related to Covid and other factors, such as the recently announced pension cap, may make retaining staff difficult?
Recent surveys by the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Physicians, the British Medical Association and many others have shown a very high proportion of the workforce are unhappy about their work, with low morale and mental health issues particularly related to Covid. With advances in care, NHS England is likely to require a growth in workforce of 3.2% per year over the next 15 years. That is nearly 650,000 full-time equivalent staff over the next decade. There are also issues about managing the workforce. I hope that through the new NHS Bill we can explore a long-term solution through legislation. Maybe the Minister would welcome that.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle [V]
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, for securing this short but important debate. It is always a pleasure and a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Patel. I do not intend to repeat all the alarming statistics since it is abundantly clear that we are facing a crisis in the NHS workforce that is likely to get worse post Covid and which requires a co-ordinated long-term strategy. The numbers speak for themselves.
Our debate today is not just about the recruitment and retention of front-line NHS and social care staff. It also raises the issue of an ever-growing demand that drives the need for a larger workforce. There are, of course, many reasons for that, not least long lives and multiple morbidities, but alongside those go questions about lifestyle, behaviours and personal responsibility. The recent White Paper Integration and Innovation emphasises the importance of public health. What plans might Her Majesty’s Government have for making prevention a key part of their strategy for workforce development?
Baroness Wyld (Con)
My Lords, with my minute I would like to highlight specifically those involved in treating perinatal mental illness. As many as one in five women experience mental health difficulties during pregnancy or after childbirth. The NHS long-term plan addressed that and workforce numbers are starting to move in the right direction, although we are playing catch-up in what has been a long neglected area.
The pandemic has resulted in women missing out on vital face-to-face interactions with health workers and support groups, so it is not surprising that during my research I found that many health professionals fear an epidemic of post-natal depression in particular. I would like my noble friend to ensure that his department reviews this, recognising that it is about not just workforce numbers but adequate training to spot early signs and to give women the personalised understanding that they need. Sadly, some women may not have felt able to speak up during the pandemic, so we do not know what the long-term effects will be on the demand for services, and I urge the Government to keep that at the forefront of their mind in their workforce planning.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the GMC board. The NHS has responded magnificently to Covid but its underlying problems still exist. As the Health Foundation’s Jennifer Dixon put it, the NHS is under-resourced, under-doctored and under-nursed. The foundation forecasts that by 2033-4, vacancies will exceed 475,000 full-time equivalent, and even more will be needed to meet rising expectations and the impact of a growing older population. Yesterday’s Budget revealed a cut in spending for the Minister’s department of £30 billion from April and social care reform has once again been kicked into the long grass, so where is the long-term approach to the NHS and social care? Where is the long-term approach to workforce planning that is so desperately needed? Where is the innovation?
The GMC has used emergency powers to grant registration to over 25,000 doctors so that they can support the pandemic response, but most of them have still not been deployed. What a missed opportunity to bring those doctors back permanently to alleviate our workforce shortages.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
My Lords, the NHS is critically short of staff so it is a credit to all that over the pandemic the amount of care given increased by one-third with the total workforce short by 84,000. The scale and complexity of care have risen considerably over the last few years, and I trust that the NHS pay review body will take all this into consideration.
Our Chief Nursing Officer has £28 million to recruit internationally nurses and midwives who are keen to join the NHS front line. The global market has widened for the ethical recruitment of health and care staff by aligning with the WHO code of practice. How many overseas nurses does the CNO hope to recruit? The forthcoming health and care Bill, which I hope is innovative, puts a duty on the Secretary of State to report on workforce planning responsibilities, which would be an ideal opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny. Maybe then we can revisit the issue.
Baroness Greengross (CB) [V]
My Lords, the All-Party Group on Adult Social Care—[Inaudible.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
We are having difficulty hearing the noble Baroness. We will come back to her after the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Willis of Knaresborough.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will make a very brief reference to a group of NHS staff who have gone largely unnoticed during this pandemic and the debate but have been trailblazers and lifesavers in equal measure. I refer to the newest recruits in the registered healthcare workforce, nursing associates. The nursing associate register commenced two years ago, and today there are 4,036 registrants with a further 7,000 who commenced training at the height of the pandemic. Many plan to train on as registered nurses. These remarkable people, most of whom were dedicated care assistants, have risen to the greatest nursing challenge ever seen, saving patients and, indeed, the NHS. What steps are the Government taking to recognise the contribution of nursing associates and to redouble the investment in the recruitment and training of future cohorts?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
I will move to the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. We hope by the end of her speech to have resolved Baroness Greengross’s communication issue.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to see that the numbers applying for nursing have been increasing. I know that the Government have started on their task of recruiting 50,000 more nurses by the end of this Parliament. What progress has there been towards that target? More crucially, what is the plan for improving retention rates in the NHS, as well as recruitment? Is there any further plan for improving recruitment and retention in the social care sector, which has not been mentioned so far?
I know that there is also a potentially significant issue with GP shortages being caused by early retirement, which has been encouraged by pension rules. Is there a plan to look into that issue as well?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Clark, outlined, we have for years failed to train the medical staff we need. To take doctors, for example, the numbers are astonishing: over one-third of our doctors—35%—obtained their qualifications overseas, yet in both France and Germany the figure is below 10%. Meanwhile, some 8,000 British applicants are being turned away every year.
The figures for nursing are even worse. Until 2016, more than 30,000 UK applicants were turned away every year, while tens of thousands of nurses were recruited from abroad, often from countries that need them far more than we do.
Finally, the Covid crisis is an opportunity for a major reform of medical training. I certainly hope the Government will take it. The NHS’s standing has never been higher and the number of volunteers has never been greater. We need some firm action. Our young people deserve these opportunities. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross.
Baroness Greengross (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am co-chair of the All-Party Group on Adult Social Care. Our recent report found that the government target of recruiting 20,000 additional social care workers was not enough—[Inaudible.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
I am sorry; I think the difficulty is that the noble Baroness is not close enough to her microphone. When she was tested, it was fine. If we cannot hear her again, perhaps she could write and the Minister will pick up the issues she would like to raise? I will give the noble Baroness one more try right now.
I am sorry; our connection is just too poor for us to hear the noble Baroness. If she could send an email in, the Minister will pick up the issues when he sums up. I thank her very much for her patience.
I call the noble Lord, Lord Winston. No, the noble Lord has withdrawn. I call the noble Lord, Lord Balfe. No, he has withdrawn too. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I am indeed here. I have one minute and two points. First, on recruitment and training, the World Health Organization reports that there are 28 million nurses worldwide but a 5.9 million global shortfall in the number of nurses needed. One in every eight nurses practises in a country other than the one where they were born or trained. The UK is a wealthy country and is traditionally a large importer of this scarce and valuable human resource, which other speakers have referred to. Surely we should be training sufficient numbers of nurses for our own needs and more. I note recent figures that UCAS has received 48,830 applications for nursing courses in England, up from 35,960 at the same point last year. In the continuing emergency situation, will the Government ensure that everyone who wants to study nursing gets a place, and will they agree to the Royal College of Physicians’ request to double the number of medical school places?
Secondly, on retention, for which one requirement is surely decent pay, there are many reasons to give the NHS a pay rise that I hardly need to list. However, I note that research by independent analysts London Economics found that 81% of the cost of an NHS pay rise would be recouped by the Government through additional taxes paid by the employee and employer, taxes earned through the greater economic activity that the pay rise would generate, and higher loan repayments by recent graduates. So why not a pay rise?
Lord Jones (Lab) [V]
I offer tribute to our local NHS staff, those hard-pressed, weary, dedicated, resourceful, very local nurses and GPs and ever-courteous volunteers aplenty. They, the nurses, have injected tens of thousands so very professionally. Daily, we queued in our hundreds at the Deeside Leisure Centre. We sought immunity and we got it—the heroic nurses gave it. The nurse and the gatekeeper GP are the backbone of the NHS. We need more of them, urgently, and let us reward the heroic nurses better.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, I was appalled to read last week that the Government now say that recruiters for the NHS and care homes can actively target 105 countries that were previously blacklisted on ethical grounds. These countries include Zimbabwe, Jamaica, South Africa and India, all of which have an acute shortage of doctors and nurses. India, for example, has 0.8 doctors per 1,000 people—the UK has 2.8 per 1,000 people. It is therefore ludicrous for the Government to say that recruitment from these countries has suddenly become ethical. It has not.
We need a proper workforce strategy. As a result of Covid and the great work of existing NHS staff, wherever they come from, there is real enthusiasm among young British people to work for the NHS—applications for nursing courses, for example, were up by 35% last year —yet medical school places increased by a paltry 500 in the last year for which I have figures. There is a double betrayal here: of those in poorer countries whose doctors and nurses we are stealing, and of the unemployed in this country who we are failing to train. It is shameful.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Government must tackle the long-term underlying problems of training clinical and associated healthcare staff in a sustained and future-proofed way. We had serious gaps in capacity long before the Covid pandemic.
During Covid, exhausted and stretched staff have doubled, or even tripled, ward capacity in a makeshift manner to save lives over the past year. We must be better prepared for the future. Will the Minister commit to increase funding for the workforce development budget and internal education? We need a flexible, nurtured, resilient workforce to face the health challenges of tomorrow and incentives to retain our excellent NHS heroes.
These issues were urgent prior to the pandemic, and this has been a contributing factor to the appalling death toll in this country. The Government must make fully funded workforce planning a central aspect of any upcoming reforms.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Clark on this debate. He is such a great champion of nurses; they could not have a better one. I also echo the request by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. Why not have a pay rise for nurses, paramedics and other NHS staff? It is a bit of a slap in the face not to have one.
At least 230 NHS staff have died during the pandemic, while thousands have been on long-term sick leave as a result of working on the front line. The Government have often cited their success in recruiting new nurses, saying that record numbers are working in the profession. However, the number of unfilled nursing posts in the NHS has barely changed. Can the Minister explain why there is not a publicly available, fully funded, long-term workforce plan for the NHS and social care to boost the numbers of nurses and NHS staff? I am sure that he would agree that the workforce remains key to the next phase of dealing with the pandemic and its aftermath.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, I am hugely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, for securing this very important debate and I pay tribute to his campaign on this subject. I also thank all noble Lords who have spoken so well in such a short amount of time. There is clearly widespread agreement that building a resilient NHS workforce to meet the future needs of this nation is essential, and I completely agree.
I also echo the thanks of the noble Lord, Lord Clark, for the extraordinary contributions of health and care workers across the UK during the pandemic. It is important that we recognise their extraordinary efforts. With the exceptional success in the UK of the rollout of the vaccines programme, we are at last approaching a time when the worst of the pandemic is over and the NHS can return to its business as usual—caring for the nation and providing world-leading healthcare.
I will say a word about the long-term plan. A £3 billion, one-year package has been announced for 2021-22 as part of the spending review to support the NHS in tackling the impact of Covid-19. This will include £1 billion to address backlogs and tackle the long waiting lists raised by noble Lords, by facilitating up to a million extra checks, scans and additional operations.
As the NHS gets to grips with the backlog of care, it is essential that we continue to change the way we deliver healthcare over the next 10 years. All those who spoke about innovation are absolutely right in that regard. We have a road map to do just this in the NHS long-term plan, which clearly sets out a new service model for the 21st century: more care delivered in the community, digitally enabled primary and outpatient care, and a relentless focus on the health of the local population and reducing health inequalities. I reassure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle that the plan absolutely identifies how we can make better use of early diagnosis and technology potentially to improve preventive care, population health and patient care. This will be supported by new and integrated models of care, as laid out in the NHS Bill.
I shall say a few words about staff retention. To do these things, we need more staff, yes, but critically we need to hold on to those that we already have for longer, help them to recover from the herculean efforts of the pandemic, nurture their skills and enable them to provide the care to patients that drives their efforts. The commitment of staff and the wider impacts of the pandemic mean that the NHS continues to see much stronger retention rates.
Despite that, troubling issues need to be addressed to ensure that dedicated NHS staff have the best possible experience of work. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, made an absolutely fair point on the need for a holiday. Our black and minority ethnic staff, in particular, report some of the poorest workplace experiences. I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that the NHS people plan sets out exactly the kind of programme that she called for to tackle these issues, and we will continue to strive every day to ensure improvement on that front.
I come to NHS workforce growth and planning. The workforce has increased by over 160,000 already since 2010, an increase of 16%. This growth continues to be a key focus to ensure that we meet the rise in demand for health and care services. The 2020 spending review provided £260 million to continue to grow the NHS workforce and support commitments made in the NHS long-term plan. Nursing is absolutely the most critical component in this vision. I am pleased to report to the noble Lord, Lord Clark, that we are on track to deliver 50,000 more nurses by the end of this Parliament and put the NHS on a trajectory to a sustainable long-term supply in future. The 50,000 commitment is underpinned by a robust delivery programme, which will be achieved through increased domestic and international recruitment, and improved retention. The latest NHS workforce statistics show that nurse numbers have increased by almost 10,600 from almost 289,200 to over 299,700 between December 2019 and December 2020.
To reassure the noble Lord, Lord Clark, and echo the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, the future domestic pipeline is strong, with UCAS end-of-cycle data showing 25,000 student nurses enrolled on courses in 2020-21. This is a 27% increase. I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that we cannot give everyone a place. As I am sure she knows, the job is highly skilled; it is a very difficult vocation, and it is extremely hard work. Not everyone is suited to it. More recent UCAS data shows unique applicants to nursing and midwifery courses in 2021 have increased dramatically to 48,300, or by 34% compared with last year. I hope that that provides some reassurance to my noble friend Lady Wyld.
On primary care, we are equally committed to growing the workforce and expanding the number of appointments available to patients. This will mean improved access to GP services and bigger teams of staff. On the reservations expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Clark, on the GP model, we are completely open to change: we have already looked very carefully at the independent review partnership model, the GP fellowship scheme and other schemes for GPs. But, with record numbers of GPs being recruited at the moment, it is too early to call time on the successful existing model. We have committed at least an additional £1.5 billion in cash terms for general practice over the next four years for additional staff. We will grow the workforce by 6,000 more doctors and 26,000 more primary care professionals. As of December 2020, there were 438 more full-time equivalent doctors compared with a year before.
Education was raised by many noble Lords. The Government have funded an extra 1,500 undergraduate medical school places per year in England—a rise of 25%. I reassure the noble Lords, Lord Willis and Lord Green, that the number of medical school training places will rise to 7,500 each year. We have also delivered five brand-new medical schools: in Sunderland, Lancashire, Chelmsford, Lincoln and Canterbury.
My noble friend Lady Wyld made extremely good points on the importance of perinatal care—a subject in which we share a keen interest.
UCAS data shows that there has been a large increase in the number of applicants to study medicine this year, with almost 5,000 additional applicants compared with 2020.
International recruitment was raised by a number of noble Lords. There is excellent growth in our domestic workforce, but we do still value the workers from all over the world who are playing a leading role in the NHS’s efforts to tackle coronavirus and save lives. We have made £80 million available for the recruitment of overseas nurses and the recruitment of healthcare support workers. Trusts are working hard to fill these nursing positions.
To the noble Lord, Lord Jones, I say that there is nothing ethical about blacklisting healthcare staff from certain countries.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, I say that I do not have the precise number to hand, and I suspect that it is not in the public realm, but I will try to find it and send a note to her. Perhaps I can reassure her that the supply of international nurses wanting to work in the NHS remains strong and, in spite of travel bans in some places, we are seeing more nurses arrive all the time. We have recently published our code of practice for the international recruitment of healthcare professionals, which will ensure that the UK is a world leader in ethical international recruitment and will, I hope, go some way to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Jones.
I reassure my noble friend Lady Altmann that we are also doing more to attract people into social care. We ran a national recruitment campaign across broadcast, digital and social media. The latest phase in the campaign was launched in early February, highlighting the vital role that the social care workforce has played during the pandemic.
On pay, while most pay rises will be paused in the rest of the public sector for 2021-22, the Government recognise, as does the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, the uniquely challenging impact of Covid-19 on the NHS, so we will continue to provide pay rises for NHS workers, including nurses. For recommendations on pay we are looking to the independent pay review body and will carefully consider its recommendations when we receive them.
A number of noble Lords touched on staff coming back from retirement, which has been raised in previous debates. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised this point. I acknowledge that former healthcare professionals came forward in extraordinary numbers to support the NHS during Covid-19, and we are enormously grateful for their response. Due to the postponement of elective care, the skills and experience of many of these professionals were not deployed at the time—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was entirely right to make that point. We need to understand the reasons for that more clearly and to learn lessons for the future—I acknowledge that. In many areas, hospitals preferred to make more use of their existing staff rather than take on unfamiliar staff in a time of pressure, where teams were dependent on trusting relationships to manage the crisis. In future we need to ensure established ongoing relationships at local level, so that when the need comes again—as I am sure it will—this invaluable and public-spirited resource can be quickly deployed to ease pressures.
I am confident that there is the potential to build a permanent legacy through the development of a form of NHS and care reserve, which could help former healthcare professionals remain part of the NHS family, keep their skills up to date and provide additional support in times of pressure. NHS England has been piloting models for an NHS reserve across the regions of England. NHSEI has established seven pilots, one in each region of England. It is drawing on the learning from these pilot sites, the experience of the Bring Back Staff programme and five subject-specific national framework task and finish groups to investigate the best way forward to make additional flexible workforce resources available to the NHS.
I finish by reassuring noble Lords that growing and supporting the NHS workforce is a key priority for this Government. The breadth of our work, which I have only touched on today, should be a testament to the Government’s focus on this essential mission.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. The next business is a Question for Short Debate on the steps Her Majesty’s Government are taking to support hauliers transporting goods internationally. The time limit is one hour. I call the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach. I believe he is on the call, but perhaps he is having problems unmuting himself. We shall adjourn for five minutes so that the technical problem can be overcome.
Hauliers
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support hauliers transporting goods internationally.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden)
My Lords, let us endeavour to return to the start of the debate. I call the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, to ask his Question .
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con) [V]
I thank the noble Lord, the Deputy Chair of Committees, for calling me. I have been here, but we were out of contact.
I thank the Minister for taking this short debate. She is rightly highly regarded and respected in this House. Much of what I say will be the responsibility of other government departments; their inter-relationship with haulage and overseas trade is complex. I look forward to her response. She will know that I have been encouraged by the digital engagement team to participate in the pilot, using this debate to demonstrate the range of knowledge which is represented by Members of this House. They have asked those working in the industry likely to be interested of their take on the debate. I will refer to some of them later.
I begin by declaring my interests in the register. Noble Lords will understand that I will draw on my horticultural experience, as the business is very much involved with trade in the Netherlands and elsewhere and in both parts of Ireland. It could be said that the situation is much improved since 10 weeks ago, when the Kent variant of Covid-19 first appeared and France unilaterally denied access to road transport. Dover ferries and the tunnel were unable to function. This ended when the Government negotiated a resumption of traffic by a Covid-testing scheme for drivers which over the Christmas holiday relieved the stack. The dress rehearsals which had been held earlier in the year for a no-deal stalemate proved their worth, and the department is to be congratulated on the smooth running of what could have been a chaotic situation.
It was also demonstrated how our overseas trading links and full supermarket shelves depend on our road hauliers. I believe a remote customs and inspection facility has been constructed to relieve pressure on Dover. Will my noble friend tell me how well it is functioning and whether other such remote facilities likely to be constructed in connection with the newly announced freeports?
There are a number of remote border control posts. There is one at FreshLinc, Spalding, and we ourselves are a place of destination. Does my noble friend have some figures on how many of these are registered? Noble Lords may be surprised that they are considered necessary. However, although we have a trade and co-operation agreement with the European Union, negotiated so ably by my noble friend Lord Frost, who will be making his maiden speech in the next debate, we are now a third country and some elements of traffic are subject to not just customs declarations but product inspections. Frictionless this is not.
I can give noble Lords a personal example. Because of our new relationship, our business is subject to UK phytosanitary certification inspection regulations, as our biosecurity has been repatriated. I welcomed these regulations when they came before the Grand Committee in December. However, they are complex and introduce a great deal of friction into trade. Noble Lords will probably not be aware of the considerable paperwork in the export and import of plants and flowers, and, for that matter, meat products. New computer programs are being designed by Defra’s Animal and Plant Health Agency. Meanwhile, we have had to use an old program. Although there is some easing of pressure, paperwork and inspections are still the order of the day.
One of the respondents to the digital team’s survey, Mike from the West Midlands, called for “Less complex requirements for customs procedures, and make it all online—less paperwork”. I agree. Can my noble friend the Minister update the Grand Committee as to when traders can expect the arrival of this updated platform, and what sort of transfer arrangements will be made for change? Is the Department for Transport in discussion with colleagues in government on the design of digital systems, with the intention of making trade as straightforward for hauliers and traders as possible? I know that two staff members at Taylor’s have been invited to meetings. Perhaps I might say that I view traders and hauliers as having the same interest in this regard. Easing friction and limiting costs is very much in everyone’s interests. The Government have done much to assist the push-pull of trade across borders with TSS—the trader support service. These are free to use but not without costs to the trader in collecting and inputting data. It is the sort of partnership which a Government supporting trade and commerce need to provide. In addition to encouraging trade support services, what other support can be put in place to support hauliers transporting goods internationally?
I mentioned previously the cost to traders of the regulating procedures involved. This becomes even more of a problem when groupage or part-loads only are involved. I was told of a nurseryman who had to pay additional costs of £250 for one trolley of plug plants from Belgium for growing on at his nursery. Parcels traffic, which used to keep retailers stocked, can be even more disproportionate; parcel companies can be excused for not providing this service for products subject to phytosanitary regulation. What efforts are the department making to reduce the friction on such businesses to markets which were freely accessible within the EU pre-Brexit, regrettably with Northern Ireland now included?
Easing friction is in everyone’s interest. I am grateful to Logistics UK, formerly the FTA, for its briefing which reinforces this maxim. I hope all noble Lords participating in this debate have received it. I have sent a copy to my noble friend the Minister. It presents a number of ideas, particularly to address the difficulties for deliveries to Northern Ireland, which are less certain following the recent decision not to develop port inspection facilities.
The grace period ends on 1 April and noble Lords will be aware of today’s news on this. Those of us in food and non-food agriculture and horticultural produce need a viable groupage provision for hauliers to offer traders. Our season top-up business to garden centres needs a parcel service. With the will, we can improve systems and structures. Logistics UK also made a similar request for advice on additional EU trade requirements from April that I endorse.
Haulage of all types has been impacted by the pandemic. How is traffic? I ask my noble friend the Minister what the latest figures are compared with the first two months of 2020? What are the Minister’s views on this? What measures in particular will help the industry recover now we have a road map?
Several correspondents to the digital engagement team of the House commented on this. Noble Lords will not be surprised that I received a number of submissions from groups representing performing arts and music about the particular challenges of touring not only in the EU, but even ATA Carnets and CITES in Northern Ireland. The hauliers involved are anxious at what they see as unworkable cost trade and cabotage restrictions.
I hope I have been able in framing this QSD to indicate the importance of the link that international haulage provides for our arts, trade and commerce. I thank noble Lords for their interest in this QSD. I look forward to the speeches that follow and to the response of my noble friend.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has spelled out the problems. The reason they have not been as apparent as they might is not just the Covid effect, but as the period of grace means that the regulations have not been fully implemented either across the channel or in Northern Ireland.
My main point is a different one. Once we return to something like pre-existing levels of exports and imports, there will be a serious problem of a lack of skilled HGV drivers. A disproportionate number of HGV drivers from and to the UK, whether employed, subcontracted or owner-drivers, have been EU citizens, mainly from central and eastern Europe. A lot of small EU firms also operate over here. The British-based driving workforce is ageing.
Brexit has meant thousands of haulage drivers who are EU citizens leaving the UK and small EU-owned hauliers are also pulling out. Part of the post-Brexit plan for road haulage has to be an upgraded workforce. We need a systematic training and upskilling system and recruitment of a new generation of drivers. I see no plan for that, either by Government or by the industry. In her reply, can the Minister please enlighten the Committee on what is the strategy for upgrading the UK road haulage workforce?
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the guidance to hauliers on the government website about the trade and co-operation agreement requirements amounts to 37 pages—some little light reading.
Ian Wright, CEO of the Food and Drink Federation, told the Commons Committee on the Future Relationship with the EU that
“we now have to treat every different bit of a consignment and every different product with the same approach that we might have previously done to whole lorryloads … we are going to see the re-engineering of almost all … supply chains over the next six to nine months.”
The difficulties of Brexit red tape result from the choice made by this Government for a very hard Brexit. By prioritising sovereignty over market access, they were determined to leave the single market and customs union. The only real hope is to change that situation in the years ahead. Now there is a unilateral move by the Government to change the provisions of the Northern Ireland protocol. This foolish and regrettably confrontational move has surely prejudiced hopes for negotiated easements of the protocol or the TCA, unless the Minister can assure me that that is not the case.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, reports last November said that one reason for incoming lorries being stuck at Dover was that drivers from Lithuania, Hungary, Romania and elsewhere could not understand the customs forms, as they were only in English. The Minister told me in a Written Answer that the DfT road haulage handbook was being translated into 13 other languages, starting with Welsh, Polish and Romanian. Are the other 10 translations now complete and available? Other DfT measures include the multilingual incident reporting line. Have all these initiatives had the intended effect and eased the logjam attributable to language barriers?
An answer I had from the Treasury sadly did not reveal the same foresight: customs declarations are available in only English and Welsh, with no plans for translated or bilingual versions. Will the Minister speak to Treasury colleagues to see whether best practice by her department might be copied there too?
Earl Attlee (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am getting reports that the French roaming permits system for abnormal loads is not available to UK hauliers, which is causing obvious difficulties. Can the Minister give us an update, and perhaps take into account the possibility of amending the special types rules so that the special types general order is available only to operators with a UK operator’s licence? On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, perhaps it would help if we improved the conditions of employment and in particular rest facilities for lorry drivers.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP) [V]
My Lords, today the department of agriculture in Northern Ireland said that the number of regulatory checks required by the bizarre and unnecessary Northern Ireland protocol equates to 20% of all similar checks across the entire European Union. That is more checks in Northern Ireland than are carried out by any single EU member state, even the biggest. Think about that; it is an absolutely horrendous situation, and that is with the grace periods still in force. If they end, as the EU and anti-Northern Ireland interests start demanding, then each of the 1,350 retail lorries arriving in Northern Ireland per week, which at present require a single declaration, will require 20,000 to 30,000 between them. That is absolutely unacceptable—it is nearly the same amount as for the entire EU, and it would be for the internal UK movements of lorries delivering from and to the UK. We need to get real here. I welcome the action by the Government yesterday, but it is not a permanent solution. Can the Government ensure that this scandalous situation is addressed very quickly for the long term?
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, I am less concerned with the supposed delays to heavy goods vehicles crossing the channel and more concerned to see that the Government meet their carbon reduction targets in 2050. Some one-fifth of total carbon emissions in this country come from road vehicles, 21% of which come from heavy goods vehicles. Yet in 2019, the last year for which I have figures, no fewer than 1.6 million lorries were carried through the Channel Tunnel by Getlink, and 2.5 million lorries took the short sea crossing.
I have always been in favour of the Channel Tunnel. Back in the 1980s, I was chairman of the Channel Tunnel All-Party Group. I was at Canterbury when President Mitterrand and Mrs Thatcher signed the treaty of that name. We were told then that the opportunities for long-distance rail freight would be enormous, once the Channel Tunnel was opened. Yet, traffic by rail never exceeded more than 2,000 tonnes, and that number is falling. Given that the channel crossing is overdependent on road haulage, can the Minister tell us whether she is confident of meeting the government targets for carbon emissions?
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
My Lords, the international logistics industry is very complex, competitive and efficient. The trade and co-operation agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom does not make provision for the industry’s very time-sensitive arrangements, which are expensive and, almost inevitably, take up time. Can the Minister tell the Committee whose advice was sought in drawing up the agreements? Did they have intimate knowledge of how the logistics industry works? It seems as if many issues were swept under the carpet with scant regard for the effects on commerce. Reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, to an FTA circular. I certainly have not seen it and it has not been widely circulated because the FTA does not communicate with the general body of opinion.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, on spotting the need for these critical issues to be aired and responded to by the Government. I wonder whether the Minister would be minded to bundle her responses to noble Lords’ questions into a single note. It would be helpful if all the points raised could be addressed in a single place and distributed to all those taking part in this important debate.
I have three questions to add to those posed by others. Do the Government believe that serious problems exist? If so, what are the options for solving them, or does the Minister anticipate that they will continue?
Lord Empey (UUP) [V]
My Lords, in opening this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said that easing friction is in everybody’s interests. I believe that everybody in this Committee would agree with that. However, as other speakers have said, we have exacerbated friction between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, almost to the point at which it is utterly ridiculous. A small piece of earth on the tyre of a vehicle can cause it to be prevented from entering Northern Ireland because it is contaminated with soil from Great Britain.
Groupage issues will be a nightmare for hauliers because, as everybody knows, people build up loads and try to ensure that they can be delivered in small parcels to different people. The paperwork for a pallet on a groupage lorry will be dramatic. Even the Irish Republic is suffering. It can send lorries directly to Europe without crossing Great Britain, but it costs between €600 and €800 extra per lorry. This results in hugely increased costs and empty lorries coming back. It is unacceptable.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con) [V]
My Lords, this debate can best be described as delays caused for want of data. Does the Minister agree that this is a question of data not wagons? Where is the data? When can we reasonably expect it and how can it be effectively deployed to take out the delays in the system? Has she had a chance to look at the paper on reducing friction in international trade that I published last year and which is part of the 2025 UK Border Strategy on page 40?
Does she agree that we in the United Kingdom have an excellent opportunity to create a utility trade platform that not only would reduce delayed costs but could be commercially beneficial? It could be sent right around the world for the benefit of every member of the United Kingdom.
Turning to musicians, this is a huge problem, but what is the solution? We need a solution, so we need to have those discussions with our European partners. Finally, I commend all the efforts of Elton John towards unblocking the problem with musicians. We all need to become “Rocket People”.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, all the speakers in this excellent debate have identified real problems that I suggest could have been thought about four years ago when we had the first Brexit vote. They can all possibly be solved, but it will take time, and at the moment it is a complete disaster. What have the Government learned from these issues and how will they change the procedures, documentation et cetera? More importantly, how do they intend that these improvements will be communicated to the industry? How will they work when we have the extra lines of problems coming in on 1 April and 1 July? Lastly, what consultation has taken place with the equivalent people in the European Union—or is it just us working on our own?
Lord Foster of Bath (LD) [V]
My Lords, much concern has been expressed about the post-Brexit problems faced by creative groups such as orchestras and theatre companies wishing to tour in Europe. In addition to the problems around work permits and other paperwork requirements, they also face, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, mentioned, transport problems. Prior to Brexit, such groups often visited several venues in multiple countries, with their own or rented specialist vehicles moving their instruments and equipment from venue to venue. But under the post-Brexit cabotage rules, this will no longer be possible unless UK creative groups stop using UK vehicles and rely on EU ones.
When, in January, I raised this with the Culture Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, assured me that colleagues in the Department for Transport were working hard to address these issues. So can the Minister tell us what has been achieved in the intervening time? Surely we should at least be able to get an exemption in cases such as this, where what leaves the UK in a lorry returns to the UK in the same lorry. Can she also tell us whether we should be additionally concerned now that the EU has shelved plans to ratify the trade deal with us because it no longer trusts us?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]
For Irish Sea freight, extending the grace period makes sense—but not unilaterally; not by resiling from due process and the protocol. Breaking our word is not what Britain does—or used not to be.
On the wider problems hauliers face, I see no quick fix, because they stem directly from ditching 60 years of market-opening endeavour. At a stroke, we have gone back not just to before the Thatcher single market success, or Mr Heath’s customs union, but back before the Macmillan Government invented EFTA successfully. How astonished they would be to see their party now put autarchy over access and opt for frontiers over freedom. It has consequences. In the decade after rejecting the EEA, Switzerland grew more slowly than every EU member state. In yesterday’s Budget Red Book, we saw that our exports are forecast still to be shrinking in 2025. I fear that the hauliers are only the harbingers.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, traders and hauliers moving goods from GB to Northern Ireland urgently require certainty, stability and simplicity, which can be resolved or solved only through intergovernmental agreement and co-operation between the UK and the EU—not, as we witnessed last night, the unilateral actions of the Government, which simply fuel discontent. In this regard, I urge the Minister to provide an update to the House on the retail movement scheme, the groupage scheme, parcel delivery services and a bolted-on scheme for the trader support service for SPS food products as a matter of urgency. Also, will she indicate when discussions will resume between the UK and the EU, which are urgently required?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I entirely support the comments of my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach and I refer to the fact that I am an honorary president of the United Kingdom Warehousing Association.
There remains great confusion in the paperwork required before a lorry leaves the UK for EU ports, and sometimes Northern Ireland too. The Government must give clearer advice. Can my noble friend the Minister say when digitalised forms will be available? As regards the issue that my noble friend Lord Taylor set out concerning groupage, it is unacceptable that even the smallest mistake involving only one item in the consignment means that the whole consignment will be lost. This must be addressed urgently.
I received a letter today from my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook. She says:
“We recognise the need to provide as much support for the haulage sector as possible.”
I ask the Minister: what is that support?
Lord Strasburger (LD) [V]
My Lords, a highly successful sector of the UK haulage industry specialises in transporting staging, instruments and equipment around the UK and Europe for touring musicians. There are about eight major companies in this sector and they also work for dance companies, theatre, fashion, museums, and big events businesses. These British companies are pre-eminent in their field and it is estimated that they transport 80% of British and American bands on European tours.
However, the Government’s failure to secure a cultural exemption from cabotage rules in the EU trade negotiations means that it is all going to hell in a handcart. Their trucks must now return to the UK every two gigs in a tour of perhaps 25 venues, which is not remotely feasible. They are moving their businesses into the EU, at great cost to themselves and UK plc. How did the Government allow this catastrophe to happen and what are they going to do to save the industry?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia. No? Then I call the noble Baroness, Lady Bull.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I want to expand on the impact on international performance touring and I am grateful to One Dance UK for its briefing.
Theatre and dance companies work closely with hauliers, designing touring shows to fit into specific trucks. Drivers remain with the tour throughout, effectively becoming part of the crew and ensuring safe packing and movement of specialised materials, sets and equipment. Under the new cabotage rules, companies will now have to implement either a cross load to an EU supplier during the tour or bring an EU supplier to the UK to establish the back-and-begin touring pattern—which means four ferry crossings instead of two, extra mileage and more costs. As few tours complete in seven days and only go to two stops, the new rules will force UK companies to use EU rather than UK hauliers.
The ideal solution would be, as we have heard, a cultural exemption from cabotage for the movement of goods, especially where subject to a carnet, on the basis that the goods will not be sold but transported for touring use and then returned to the UK. This solution would also benefit EEA performing companies coming to the UK. Can the Minister commit to finding a solution that does not lead to further costs for UK performing companies or reductions in business for UK hauliers?
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in pointing out that the issues on cabotage are part of a huge cloud now hanging over the creative sector, including the requirement for work permits or visa exemptions in many EU countries, CITES certificates for musical instruments, ATA carnets for all instruments and equipment, and proof of origin requirements for merchandise. Cabotage provisions in the EU-UK Trade and Co-operation Agreement will mean that performers’ European tours will no longer be viable, because the agreement specifies that hauliers will be able to make only two journeys within a trip to the EU. Having to return to the UK between unloading sites in the EU will have a significant negative impact on the UK’s cultural exports and associated jobs.
A successful UK transport industry dedicated to our creative industries is at risk of relocation to the EU, endangering British jobs and jeopardising the attractiveness of the UK as a culture hub, as support industries will follow the companies that relocate to the EU. What proposals do the Government have for a negotiated solution, such as they have heard about today, that will meet their needs?
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, my brief remarks are based on having spent 10 years in the European Parliament as a foot soldier in the creation of the single market. I was on the EU Goods Sub-Committee and am now chairman of the Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership.
The point of the single market and the customs union is frictionless trade, which eases business and creates wealth. If you leave them, as we have done, it is an inevitable and direct consequence that grit gets in the engine, as we have already heard this afternoon from speaker after speaker. In reality, unlike almost all other sectors, the international road haulage industry cannot, for reasons of geography, exploit possible promised trading opportunities elsewhere around the globe. The sector is therefore inevitably collateral damage of Brexit. The Government have imposed that on the industry. What, if anything, do they propose to do both for the industry and, equally importantly, for its customers in the unhappy circumstances in which we currently find ourselves?
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, UK international haulage and trade has faced the most significant and sudden changes in 20 years after the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement. Hauliers and traders are starting to see the difference between adjustment issues and the new commercial and structural changes. As president of the CBI, I can say that we are seeing at first hand that business managing disruption has become the immediate priority. The changes at the GB/EU and GB/Northern Ireland borders have been the top priority: new customs processes, delays at ports, groupage, as we have heard, and inconsistent approaches from member states are just some of the challenges.
Meanwhile, firms face a new set of challenges due to the end of the grace periods and bridging mechanism timeframes. Does the Minister agree that these grace periods are not enough? Some are saying that we need at least two years. Does she believe that we should negotiate in good faith with the European Union to extend the grace periods to up to two years? Trade is essential if we are to build a competitive, dynamic and modern economy. This year—2021—is a golden opportunity for the UK to redefine its place in the world, showcase leadership and promote our values with the chairing of the G7 and hosting the UN COP 26 summit.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Minister will undoubtedly defend the Government’s record but, as a haulier said to me this week, no amount of flannel really fools anyone. Post pandemic, the UK needs an economy firing on all cylinders, not a Government who have deliberately and knowingly created major additional hurdles. The number of empty lorries returning to the EU with no British goods on board is now around 45%. Hauliers say that this figure is usually far lower—around 15% to 20%. In April, additional checks will add problems.
Trade through Welsh ports, meanwhile, is being replaced by direct ferries from Ireland to continental Europe. A competent Government would have adapted to the circumstances and negotiated to extend the Brexit deadline until we start to recover from Covid. Instead, the Government are dangerously threatening unilaterally to abandon the Northern Ireland protocol.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
The issue is the extent to which the current difficulties faced by international hauliers are temporary ones that will be resolved in the next few months or either permanent or likely to be long-term. I am advised that the key issue is the value of exports being transported. Do the Government have any up-to-date figures on that aspect?
I am told that a higher percentage of traders than normal are having to head back to Calais empty due to Brexit difficulties; that there is a shortage of customs agents; that Northern Ireland haulage is down by half; and that while some sectors—mainly those with bigger businesses—are managing and masking the overall economic damage that is occurring, other sectors are being decimated, with agricultural rules in particular being very difficult for traders to overcome. No doubt the Minister will cover some of these points in her response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, I am enormously grateful to my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach for raising this important issue and, of course, for the contributions of all noble Lords. I am also grateful to the members of the public who shared their concerns digitally.
We have been working with the logistics industry over a number of years to understand and minimise the potential impacts on hauliers and the traders they serve at the end of the transition period. We want to increase understanding and reduce confusion across the system, and make the process as seamless as it can possibly be. Where improvements can be made, we make them as quickly as we can so that, in time, the system will adjust.
I believe that these processes will be part of normal business life, like filling in a VAT return: it is not pleasant, but you just do it. We are absolutely committed to reducing friction as much as we possibly can—to remove the grit from the engine, as the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said. I assure noble Lords that the latest available data shows that overall freight volumes between the UK and the EU are back to normal levels. I will write with further details about value and the number of empty containers—in fact, I will probably be writing on pretty much everything today, but that is a tribute to the quality of the debate.
I turn first to market access for hauliers, because the deal we reached with the EU allows 95% of journeys to continue as they previously did. That is one of the most important things that we were able to deliver for the haulage sector as a whole. I assure the Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that we received a substantial amount of advice, both commissioned and unsolicited, from a wide range of voices in the logistics sector.
As we have heard today from several noble Lords, specialist hauliers—those involved in cultural and sporting events—have significant concerns following the TCA, and they have of course been impacted because of the number of internal EU movements on which they rely. Market access agreements for hauliers transporting equipment for cultural events was discussed regularly and in detail during the negotiations between the UK and the EU. The UK put forward specific proposals for liberalised access but the EU was unable to agree more flexible arrangements. Of course, the Department for Transport remains in contact with the industry, and we are also working in close collaboration with DCMS and BEIS to see what we can do to support the creative industries.
Turning to the wider changes—perhaps a little beyond transport—introduced by the end of the transition period, on exports, since the start of January, traders and hauliers have needed to comply with new requirements to export to the EU, including customs declarations and sanitary and phytosanitary checks. I am pleased to say that the number of turn-backs at the border is far lower than some forecasts and, indeed, than some noble Lords suggested in their remarks today. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who called it a complete disaster, might be interested to know fewer than 5% of trucks at the short straits have to be turned back, and some of those will be because they do not have a valid Covid certificate, not because they do not have the correct customs forms. We need to temper our messages. I am not saying that there is no room for improvement—we must strain every sinew to make sure that people are fully aware of their obligations—but I am saying that the system is not completely broken, as has been implied by some noble Lords.
On imports, we have assisted international hauliers by taking a phased approach to the introduction of various checks. Until 1 July, traders can import non-controlled goods from the EU by using the existing customs processes or by making a declaration in their own records at the point the goods entered GB, followed by a supplementary declaration, which must be submitted to HMRC within 170 days of the date of import. That seems a reasonable and doable solution. The next milestone is 1 April and relates to some products of animal origin; we are of course communicating those changes. The more significant change happens from July 2021, when traders moving any goods will have to make full customs declarations at the point of importation and pay relevant tariffs.
Of course, we are taking many steps to make sure that we as a Government are ready and that traders are ready. We are making sure that HMRC can cope with the increased volumes by building on the successful delivery and upscaling of systems for the end of the transition period. I will write with more detail, particularly to my noble friend Lord Holmes, who I understand is a bit of an expert, so I will need some officials’ help with that.
We are also delivering new compliance capabilities to improve HMRC’s ability to spot and tackle non-compliance, including using data from when staged controls end. We are introducing a compliance approach to support traders to get ready and continuing to take robust action against those who choose not to comply. We are streamlining authorisation requirements, applications and processes to help meet the expected increase in demand and to improve effectiveness. We are also working with the intermediary sector to increase capacity and capability for traders to comply with the new declaration requirements.
Of course, all those changes need to be communicated, and the Government have done an enormous amount of outreach to hauliers and haulage managers. That started many months ago, and it continues. It is continually being improved. We are learning lessons and putting them in place. All information is provided on GOV.UK, and there is a haulier handbook, which is updated when needed. We engaged in the process of drafting the handbook with Logistics UK, the Road Haulage Association and many others to ensure that it was as clear as possible. It is published in English and 13 other EU languages. We will consider other languages if there is a demonstrated need, but we feel that we have enough at the moment. We also have 46 information and advice sites. When I first heard about them, I thought, “What use are they going to be?”, but more than 137,000 hauliers have visited them since they opened in November. I think that is astonishing. More than 11,400 hauliers have received specific border readiness consultations at our sites, so it is not surprising that less than 5% of trucks arriving at the border are fully non-compliant. We are doing all right.
My noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach mentioned the inland border facilities. There are, and will be, a number of them. Information on all of them has been published on GOV.UK, with details of their logistics, their functions and their facilities. Hauliers are told what to expect at the site, what they need to prepare and any key documents that they need to bring.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was concerned about whether we have been talking to EU hauliers. I can reassure him that, of course, we have. We not only speak at their industry days, but we make speeches at their major conferences and events, and we have exhibition stands both physically and virtually. Much of that will continue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, asked whether we have digital interaction. We do. We have a dedicated haulier website with an embedded live chat function. This function has on average 35 in-depth conversations, lasting 20 minutes, each day, and around 700 hauliers a day ask advice. We have agents who speak English, Polish, Romanian and Bulgarian. We are particularly pleased that that is working well. However, we understand that there are lessons to learn, and we have learned them. We must put that into our communications as we go through April and then through the second change in July.
I now turn to Northern Ireland support and the specific situation in Northern Ireland. The Government remain committed to supporting hauliers in moving goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. For example, we established the Trader Support Service—the TSS—which is designed to support all businesses impacted by the Northern Ireland protocol. The service is free to use, and it can complete declarations on behalf of traders without traders needing to engage directly with new digital customs systems and processes. More than 34,000 traders are registered to use the service, and thousands of declarations are being processed each day. The contact centre is, of course, providing additional support. To date, the TSS has processed more than 68,000 goods movements, involving 200,000 consignments, since launching. The contact centre has more than 700 staff and answers more than 17,000 calls, with an average answering speed of six seconds.
Not only do we have the TSS but there is also the movement assistance scheme—MAS—which was announced to complement the existing TSS. It provides help to all those traders who move food or agricultural products for which specific sanitary and phytosanitary—SPS—controls apply. This means that a trader moving live animals or other animal or plant products does not need to pay to have them inspected. The MAS scheme also has a dedicated helpline for general enquiries for traders and, together these measures, it is making it easier to move agri-food goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
A third intervention in Northern Ireland was Defra’s digital assistance scheme—DAS—which supports the continued movement of agri-food goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. It also addresses the costs and burdens of compliance with a protocol for industry. It uses digitised certification and verification processes and was backed by a major amount of government funding.
A number of noble Lords have mentioned groupage, which is a concern that we are well aware of. We have developed two groupage models, and they have been agreed. The guidance for these models for Northern Ireland was published on 29 January, and we will be looking to see how these models work and whether further improvements can be made.
Noble Lords will know that yesterday the Government went further to support trade between GB and NI. My noble friend Lord Frost is clear that progress needs to be made to address the direct and often disproportionate impact that aspects of the protocol are having on the citizens of Northern Ireland, contrary to its intended purpose. So, yesterday, following official-level notification to the Commission earlier this week, we set out temporary technical steps that largely continue measures that are already in place. They provide more time for businesses, such as supermarkets and parcel operators, to adapt to and implement the new requirements of the protocol.
For my noble friend Lord Attlee, I will speak very briefly on abnormally large loads. I am aware of this issue, and we have taken it up with the French Government via the British embassy. I will write with further details, but we hope to have it resolved.
I have not covered haulage drivers, but I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that they are towards the top of my list of things to do. It is a significant issue, and the Government are doing a significant amount on apprenticeships, but it is time for me to speak to the industry because I believe that it has to step up and start looking at ways to recruit its own drivers. It is critical.
To the noble Lord, Lord Snape, I say that of course we want to see a switch to rail freight where it is feasible. We had an Oral Question on this recently. It forms part of the Government’s plans for the future.
All the measures I have mentioned today highlight the fact that my department and the Government are supporting hauliers to transport goods internationally on many fronts.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The Grand Committee stands adjourned. I remind Members to sanitise their chairs and desks before leaving the Room.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, I apologise to the maiden speakers that we cannot give them the normal indulgence of exceeding time, but they have been granted between one and a half and two minutes as a special concession. Everyone else is restricted to one minute, except the welcomers, who equally may indulge themselves into a minute and a half after the maiden speakers. The time limit for this debate is one hour.
Space Industry
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Willetts
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support the United Kingdom space industry.
Lord Willetts (Con)
I am delighted that your Lordships are debating the UK space industry. It is key to building back better. It is rapidly growing—by 60% in the past decade—and is spread across the whole country, from Goonhilly in Cornwall to the north of Scotland, via Guildford, Leicester, Glasgow and elsewhere. I declare my interests, especially my roles with Surrey Satellite Technology, SatixFy and Skyrora and my position as chancellor of the University of Leicester, which has a long and distinguished history of space science and is now creating a space park, which it hopes will host a national centre for space manufacturing.
I also welcome the Minister, my right honourable and noble friend Lord Frost, to his maiden speech at the end of this debate. I believe there will be two other maiden speeches as well, to which I am greatly looking forward; I am only sorry that the time constraints in this debate are so intense.
I very much welcome the initiatives the Government are taking to promote the British space sector. The National Space Council should integrate governmental policy work on space, and the investment in OneWeb was a welcome and bold initiative. The Government have also led the UN initiative on responsible behaviour in space, an excellent example of soft power. Britain is also one of the key players in the European Space Agency, which is an intergovernmental body and not part of the European Union, which I am sure the Minister will welcome. Now the Government are committed to a comprehensive space strategy, to be published in the next six months, which is also very welcome. Meanwhile, I would like briefly to set out four challenges, which I hope the Minister will be able to address in his response at the end.
First, there is funding. Space is one of those classic areas where well-designed public spending crowds in private spending rather than driving it out, so we do need a well-funded national space programme. However, there are concerns about the future of some existing programmes; for example, the space international partnership programme, which has been part of the Government’s ODA spend. There is a very tiresome media trope that developing countries should not have anything to do with space. The opposite is the case; many developing countries which do not have conventional infrastructure need space-based services even more. This programme provides for partnerships with them, and I very much hope it will be maintained. Also, a national space innovation programme was launched last year, which is an excellent initiative. Because of the lack of a long-term comprehensive spending settlement, there is a risk to that programme as well. It would be marvellous if it could be maintained.
The second challenge is regulation. The Space Industry Act 2018 sets out the framework, but it is important that the detailed regulation is correct and not too onerous. There are exciting prospects for space launch from Scotland. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, whose maiden speech we may hear shortly, who, when he was Minister, pushed the space launch initiative forward. We all want to see space launch from the north of Scotland soon.
This is a race and we must not be complacent. There is a real gap for a European space launch capability, because when you launch small satellites into low-earth orbit, equatorial launch is not what you are looking for, you want to launch north, over the poles, so there is competition between the north of Scotland, Sweden and Germany, which is investing a lot. If the regulations from the CAA are too onerous, we will lose out in this race, so it is important that they are proportionate.
There are also burdens of regulation on satellite operators who are not launching from the UK, but are legally based here. There are long-standing issues, which all of us who were Ministers in the past with responsibility will remember—the tricky issues around liabilities, the cost of insurance, the right balance between private insurance and ultimately the Government taking the risk. It is very important that we do not expect greater legal liabilities from UK-based entities than companies located elsewhere, particularly—I am looking again at the Minister—if EU regulation is less onerous than ours and launch companies move to the EU to escape onerous British regulation.
The Government have just launched an excellent new initiative on innovation and deregulation. Will the Minister give that team the opportunity to review the proposed space sector regulations with the industry to check that they are proportionate, promote innovation and do not put us at a disadvantage.
Thirdly, the Government’s investment in OneWeb is already proving its worth. It will be crucial to Five Eyes capacities over the Arctic and it can do much more in the future when we move on to the second generation of OneWeb satellites. A lot of work was done on a British alternative to Galileo, but the original idea of a technology similar to the Galileo and GPS systems—the large satellites way out in distant orbit, further than 10,000 kilometres—would not have added resilience to the US or European system, because it would have been copying their technologies. It is far better for us to invest in a new LEO—low-earth orbit—constellation, complementing what GPS or Galileo can do.
I put it to the Minister, with his geopolitical interests, that one may imagine a deal in which the EU were given some place at the table in OneWeb in return for our getting access to Galileo once more. But as a minimum, it is important that we look at using the next generation of OneWeb satellites to deliver position, navigation and timing services. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the MoD will commission research on those services for the second generation of OneWeb satellites.
Fourthly and finally on my list, there is the role of space in tackling the climate emergency, with the prospect of COP 26 being held in Glasgow later this year. Earth observation data, in particular, is very relevant to COP 26, There is one estimate that half the 50 essential climate variables that have to be monitored can be observed only from space. There is also the visual observation of marine conservation areas—one of the main ways, incidentally, in which space-based services help developing countries, by enabling them to police their own maritime areas—as well as mapping tropical rainforests and deforestation, and helping disaster response to extreme weather events.
There is a real prospect of space playing an important role in COP 26 and the monitoring of decisions taken there. I very much hope that, given our exciting position chairing COP 26, it will be possible for us to promote and identify a distinct space strand to that discussion.
The Government are strongly committed to space. All of us who have worked closely on space policy in whatever capacity will know the potential that exists there for the UK. I very much look forward to seeing the UK play a crucial role in new technologies, space surveillance and tracking, space debris removal and in-orbit servicing. The Government have already taken very useful initiatives in space, and I hope that the Minister will be able to address the challenges I have identified today and make further progress in the future.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the maiden speakers, including the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, has stolen my thunder a bit because he has focused very much on OneWeb, which is one element of government investment in the space industry. They co-invested half a billion pounds in OneWeb, which was a failed satellite communications company that had gone bankrupt and had to be raised from the dead. Although it is based in London, OneWeb’s satellite manufacture is in Florida, and there is little evidence of benefit so far to UK taxpayers or jobs. The company’s plan was to provide global broadband coverage from space in the hope that it could provide an alternative secure satellite navigation system now that the UK has been thrown out of Galileo.
It is proving difficult to get information on the Government’s intentions on OneWeb—the UK Space Agency declines to comment. Can the Minister confirm whether OneWeb is to be the UK Galileo alternative, as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, outlined? If not, what has the investment of half a billion pounds secured for the UK?
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, there cannot be any other industry where international links are more fundamental. Since 31 December, we have been excluded from important schemes such as Galileo and EGNOS, the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service. From 25 June, UK users will lose access to the EGNOS Safety of Life Service. Can the Minister clarify the impact of that and the alternatives that the Government plan to provide?
Despite losing so much we are still awaiting the Government’s space strategy. The Government’s rather random decision to invest in OneWeb does not fill us with confidence. Launch is not the be-all and end-all—it is just an enabler. The space industry and its highly skilled researchers need a strategy that amounts to much more than picking possible winners. It needs balanced investment.
Lord Parker of Minsmere (CB) (Maiden Speech) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to have this brief opportunity to make my maiden speech. It gives me a moment to put on record my great thanks for the generous kindness of the Convenor, Black Rod, the Clerk and the excellent House authorities. I want to make special mention of Kate Long, Daisy Christy, Ayeesha Bhutta and Gabby Longdin. I also thank my noble supporters—both colleagues and personal friends for many years—the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, and the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Weardale.
I am honoured to join many very distinguished noble Lords and friends in this House whom I have valued over the years as teammates in this country’s national security machinery, whether in the police service, the Armed Forces, the Civil Service or in political, judicial or scrutiny roles. There are too many to name today, but all are bound together in the single common endeavour of protecting this country. For my own part, I could not make this maiden speech without taking the opportunity to pay tribute—as I may now do from the outside—to the exceptional dedication and skill of all those who work so hard in MI5 and its partner organisations to keep this country safe through thick and thin. They do more than we know, and we owe them our wholehearted admiration and thanks.
I had been very much looking forward to contributing where I could to the legislative programme of this House and perhaps even serving on a Select Committee in due course. This House is tackling a slew of important Bills on national security matters of considerable interest to me, where I had hoped I might add some value. I would also have liked to engage on a range of other matters, including conservation, faith, social justice and science and technology, including this important question before us now.
However, as your Lordships will understand, this first speech must also be my last for some time. Since my recent appointment to this House, Her Majesty the Queen has graciously further appointed me as the next Lord Chamberlain of the Royal Household. I am absolutely delighted and humbled by such an extraordinary honour. It follows that the work that I had planned to do in this House as a participating Member will now properly be restricted to my prospective duties as Lord Chamberlain, following in the highly distinguished footsteps of the noble Earl, Lord Peel. I very much look forward to serving Her Majesty in every way that I can in this role.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
Congratulations, Lord Parker. I call the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to warmly welcome the noble Lord, Lord Parker, into our midst. The noble Lord has served our country within the national security space during particularly testing times. In a career of public service spanning 37 years, he rose to the rank of MI5’s director-general. On behalf of the House, I confine myself to thanking him and his former colleagues in MI5, together with the other intelligence agencies and police, for making our country a safer place.
In the normal course of events, he would embody the contribution that your Lordships’ House brings to the national debate. As he has just informed us, however, Her Majesty has other plans and has determined that she wishes him to head the Royal Household as Lord Chamberlain. He should know that, while his contribution to our deliberations is on hold, and we wish him well in his new post, we await his return and trust that, in the meantime, he can also find time to follow his passion of watching and photographing birds.
I offer just one brief point on space. The relationship with China is pivotal to the UK space programme, and vice versa. China has, as a national priority, the development of new, innovative approaches in space science applications and space skills development. The UK is a recognised world leader in these areas. Cool heads need to prevail generally in this relationship, taking account of course of all the recent, well-rehearsed challenges, but also to reflect carefully on the potential strategic nature of that relationship.
Lord Bates (Con)
My Lords, the UK space industry is made possible because it adheres to the laws of science but also to the laws of humans, upheld by the United Nations. Satellites orbit on agreed paths and transmit their information on agreed frequencies. Through these laws, we avoid chaos in the cosmos. There is a trust between nations evident above the earth that sometimes eludes us on it. When viewed from space, we see the earth without borders; we see a beautiful planet of colour and contrast, home to all the life we are currently aware of in the universe. This should remind us of our solemn responsibility to care for our common home and for those we share it with. Space invites us to explore its wonders and unravel its mysteries, and we can do that if we remember the first law of human dynamics: we can accomplish immeasurably more if we work together and learn from each other.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB) [V]
My Lords, I was delighted to see that the European Space Agency recently announce that it was intending to send a disabled person into space. There was much celebrating from non-disabled people, who saw it as a step towards inclusion, but personally, I would prefer it if it were possible for me to get onto the Northern line.
Asking the International Paralympic Committee to help highlights some of the challenges of not being able to go down the more traditional recruitment route. The sector employs 42,000 people but, as with other areas, it is hard to find data on representation, and we know that getting into STEM subjects is not easy for disabled people. It is not quite comparative data, but the British Medical Association stated that 77% of respondents were worried about being treated unfavourably if they disclosed a disability or a long-term health condition to their employer or place of study. I would be interested in the data for the sector and, as we are under a strict time limit today, I will just say that I would also be interested in the employment of disabled people and how it can be included in a future strategy—not just one person being sent into space, if the ESA finds someone.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, it is good that we have the noble Lord, Lord Frost, with us to be accountable for Brexit, because he has a lot to be accountable for. His UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement is the most damaging treaty negotiated by a British Government for more than 50 years. It reduces our trade and undermines our co-operation, and nowhere is the damage of Brexit greater than to our space industry. Some £1.2 billion has been needlessly squandered in our expulsion from the Galileo project, and £500 million has been speculatively invested in OneWeb. Dr Bleddyn Bowen, a space policy expert at Leicester University, says that the OneWeb investment is a “tech and business gamble”, and OneWeb satellites have been described as unsuitable for navigational purposes by our own space agency. Space is turning into another Brexit catastrophe, and no one is being held accountable.
Lord Risby (Con) [V]
My Lords, first, I welcome the maiden speakers. The Sutherland spaceport will be the first spaceport in the United Kingdom, with the first launch as early as next year. I would be grateful to hear from my noble friend—and does he agree—that the demand for commercial, vertical and horizontal launch facilities is enormous. If so, have other sites been identified, boosting employment and revenues not only in Scotland but in the whole of the United Kingdom?
Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, humans can travel in space at 40,000 kilometres an hour, and I will have to speak as fast to deliver my maiden speech and refer to my relevant interests at Harvard, Kings and in Skyrora, in a minute. First, I thank Black Rod, the doorkeepers and my sponsors, my noble friend Lord Risby and the noble Lord, Lord Desai, for helping me acclimatise to an environment that is so similar and yet so different to the Commons, to which I was elected three times, and where I spent 10 increasingly tumultuous years in various roles, including as head of the Policy Unit and as Universities and Science Minister under three different Prime Ministers.
My noble friend Lord Willetts referred to the Space Industry Act, which I had the privilege of taking through the Commons as Space Minister. It received Royal Assent three years ago, yet we are still waiting for the regulatory framework to arrive. We need it fast and we need it to be proportionate, as my noble friend Lord Willetts rightly said. We also need much greater commitment. If we are serious about developing sovereign launch capability, which was one objective of that Act, we need a great much greater commitment to ensuring that it is UK industry that benefits from opportunities from the Act, including launch, not just the usual giant US aerospace companies. We messed this up once before as a country in 1971, when we abandoned our Black Arrow programme after being made promises of free rides for our satellites on US launches. Those offers disappeared and left us the only country to have launched a satellite successfully into orbit and then to have abandoned that independent capability. Let us make a reality of sovereign launch capability and not make those mistakes again.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
It is a great honour to follow my noble friend Lord Johnson, to welcome him to the House and to praise him for an excellent maiden speech, which I know will be the first of many fantastic contributions he will make to this House. I have to say that I know all the Johnsons, but let me say in the privacy of this room, to go no further, that he is by far my favourite. As he alluded to in his remarks, he has had an extremely distinguished career, working for the Financial Times on the Lex column but also as its Delhi correspondent; he has written a seminal book on contemporary India. He was a distinguished Member of Parliament, the head of the Policy Unit and indeed a fantastic Science and Universities Minister, highly regarded by his sector. I have just realised that I am sitting between two former Science and Universities Ministers, both of whom I love. However, for the purposes of the maiden speech, my noble friend Lord Johnson is my favourite former Science Minister, at least for the next minute. He will make a wonderful contribution for the next 50 years, because he is also very young.
The International Trade Minister Graham Stuart announced the space sector Covid support plan this week, which is very welcome, but it will take time to deliver an impact. In the meantime we must find a way to bring forward the next phase of investment in the national space innovation programme, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, which has been delayed by the postponement of the CSR. The current phase runs out at the end of this month. If that is allowed to happen, it will create another R&D gap, further compounding the impact of the lost EU contracts. We must also find ways of bringing forward other delayed capital investments—for example the disruptive innovation for space centre proposals at Westcott and Fawley, which will underpin future private sector R&D investments. I end my speech.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB) [V]
I welcome today’s maiden speakers and thank the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, for the way in which he introduced this debate. I was interested to hear his positive comments on OneWeb, which were particularly striking in contrast to the remarks others have made on that issue. Following the latest fundraising for OneWeb, can the Minister tell us where the country’s holding in that company now stands? It had been 42.2% and I wonder whether it has been significantly diluted. Could he also tell the Committee how much money was spent on trying to develop our own GPS system, a scheme that has now been abandoned?
More positively, astronauts such as Chris Hadfield are now talking about colonising the moon. NASA is setting up a lunar village, or has plans to. Can the Minister say whether the government’s space strategy will be similarly forward looking? Can he also tell us how we are regulating commercial activity in space?
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, we have been involved in space for over 50 years. In 2000 I was recognised by the Americans for my work in the national security space missions of both our nations over the previous three years. In the one minute allowed, I intend to address that critical and crucial national security space mission.
The UK must harness existing UK and Five Eyes capabilities in geosynchronous satellites and medium earth orbit capabilities, particularly low earth orbit capabilities, for a sovereign space-based position, navigation and timing system. This is crucial militarily, for our nation’s security and for the operation of many things. It should be interoperable with the Five Eyes nations and also provide secure satellite communications. This is forced on us not least by the outrageous behaviour of our European friends over the use of the Galileo system. We should also consider establishing a national space operation centre. Could the Minister let us know if this is the plan and by when it would happen?
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Government’s decision to create UK space command is a golden opportunity for greater co-operation between defence and industry. Its creation is a huge step forward because space is fundamental to our national security, vital to our economy and to our very way of life. As space becomes ever more congested and contested, it is critical that the UK is integrated in its approach. It is envisaged that space command will interact with the UK Space Agency to deliver joint national space capability. It will be a joint command based at RAF High Wycombe and be staffed from all three services of the Armed Forces, the Civil Service, and key members of the commercial sector. At its heart, its success will be determined by our ability to network our capabilities and share skills between industry and defence through the enterprise approach. Central to the ability to share skills will be the greater use of reserves splitting their time between uniformed service in the military and civilian employment in the space industry.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as disclosed in the register. If the Government’s ambition is for the UK to seize 10% of the global space economy by 2030, there needs to be much more joined-up thinking and a clear policy. I seriously question the likely success of the Government’s deal to rescue OneWeb. While it is admirable and imperative that the UK creates and supports a launch capability, such a strategy must go hand in hand with supporting those designing and building satellites, and constellation of satellites, which will need launching. My simple question is whether the UK’s funding of the space sector is effective at maximising growth. The UK needs to encourage innovation in the space industry and support space start-ups, which have the potential to deliver world-class and world-first technology.
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Willetts mentioned Scotland. A’Mhòine in Melness, Sutherland was announced as suitable for a vertical launch site and spaceport in 2018, promising increased economic activity in the area. But some two and a half years on, the community is divided, with some of the opinion that this would be destructive to the natural environment, as the site is within the largest area of peat and wetland anywhere in the world. It is at present under consideration for UNESCO world heritage site status. The project for the spaceport is currently halted and under judicial review. If the spaceport is located in Unst in the Shetland Isles, the alternative site mooted, will the Government make efforts to offer investments and incentives to other related space industries to locate in Melness in Sutherland? Economic resource and resilience are vital for the long-term future of the area and its youth, and space offers that opportunity.
Lord Birt (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as, until recently, vice-chair of Eutelsat. LEO—low earth orbit—satellites have high potential. Unlike geostationary satellites, they have low latency and universal reach, enabling instant broadband communication anywhere on the planet. But OneWeb, the LEO player in which the Government recently acquired a stake, has no track record, limited capability and went bust. How will OneWeb compete against other LEO players including Elon Musk, Amazon, China and the EU’s flagship project? How will OneWeb finance the massive rollout needed and acquire the capability to enter markets and reach customers? I ask the Minister: when will the Government finally articulate a long-term vision and plan for OneWeb?
Lord Sarfraz (Con) [V]
My Lords, I too congratulate all the maiden speakers today and declare an interest as set out in the register. The United Kingdom can be the world leader in space technology. There are many spin-off technologies that originated from space research, including ear thermometers, artificial limbs, water purification and even enriched baby food, so this is not about space alone. Last year, we witnessed the SpaceX Crew Dragon transporting NASA astronauts to the international space station. This could never have happened without close co-operation between government and a young company; our success in space depends on that spirit of partnership.
While I congratulate the Government on their significant efforts, we need to think about strengthening our space situation awareness capability, developing financing for constellations and improving insurance for small satellites. Finally, we are currently in the middle of a recruitment drive for the next cohort of British astronauts. This is an opportunity for us to inspire kids in schools across the country by talking about space, letting them hear from British astronauts and helping them develop a love for the stars and the planets.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans. We do not seem to have him. I will then go on to—oh, have we got you?
Lord Mountevans (CB) [V]
My apologies. The essential satellite services that maritime operators, the Royal Navy and indeed all of us rely on are at risk from growing congestion, debris and threats from irresponsible or hostile actors in space. There is no international rules- based order as such in space—indeed, no organisation to oversee properly the development of such an order. The International Maritime Organization, based here in London, has performed a wonderful role in establishing rules for maritime. Is it not time that we had an international space organisation to promote a safe and sustainable space, perhaps also run by the UN and based here in the UK?
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I may briefly, in advance of his maiden speech, welcome my noble friend the Minister to your Lordships’ House. He brings with him a rare combination of diplomatic skills, commercial knowledge and political astuteness, having served as Her Majesty’s ambassador in Copenhagen, as the chief executive of the Scotch Whisky Association and as a special adviser to the Prime Minister, both at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and at No.10. He has also negotiated not one but two major agreements with a tough and aggressive counterparty, two more than many of the most distinguished diplomats of his or recent generations can claim. I am sure that we all welcome him.
I welcome this debate. As my noble friend Lord Willetts clearly explained, we have tremendous opportunities in LEO satellite technology, but to achieve our potential as a sovereign independent nation, we need a strategy and I look forward to hearing further from my noble friend on that.
Lord Bowness (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the Minister and look forward to his maiden speech. There are many questions about the £400 million purchase of OneWeb, a bankrupt UK company trading in the US that required a ministerial direction for the purchase to proceed. Have all the US court consents to the purchase now been obtained? Is the manufacturing capability to be transferred from the US to the UK and when will that happen? Will we ensure that satellite launches are not dependent on the Russian Roscosmos agency? How does the purchase of OneWeb fit with the work of the space-based navigation and timing programme, which is exploring new ways of delivering satellite navigation to the UK? What part in our space policy will be played by the international agreement between the UK and the US on technology safeguards associated with US participation in space launches from the UK? When will that be debated in the House? If we are to develop an alternative version of Galileo or GPS, what is the estimated cost and how long will it take?
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con) [V]
My Lords, the future is data and the future is now. Much of that data needs to, and can come from, space, not least EOD, as my noble friend Lord Willetts pointed out in his excellent introduction. We also have a phenomenal opportunity to bolster our cyber effort and I, like the noble Lord, Lord Parker, in his excellent maiden speech, pay tribute to all in our security services who work tirelessly and rightly in the shadows to keep us safe 24/7. We have a phenomenal opportunity with the new satellite industry. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that it is a great opportunity for Scotland as part of the United Kingdom? How does the space strategy fit within the overall industrial, digital and data strategies? Does he agree that space is not the final frontier but, if properly approached, is a universe of economic endeavour and possibility?
Lord Cromwell (CB) [V]
My Lords, we rightly celebrate the UK’s outstanding ability in the technical and scientific fields that are making science fiction into science fact, but we must also build on the UK’s ability in creating international law. Our maritime history is relevant here. Space is a new frontier governed by, frankly, a few pretty generic treaties that lack key signatories. We have made progress but much more needs to be done if space is not to become, as frontiers tend to do, a mass of short-term competing commercial and military interests. That may well be more difficult to achieve than the technology for the exploration and exploitation of space, but if we fail to regulate it properly, if we simply give rein to the human instincts that have so damaged this planet and if we make the heavens a hell, as with climate change, those who come after us will curse our lack of foresight and self-control. Will the Minister commit to engaging with this?
Baroness Verma (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Willetts for this debate, be it short. I also want to welcome my noble friend the Minister and congratulate him on his maiden speech and new role. As a person from Leicester, where we have the National Space Centre and where the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, is the chancellor of the University of Leicester, I want to ask my noble friend where we can explore better collaboration programmes with the emerging markets in space development and high-tech knowledge exchange. Cities such as Leicester need to reinvent themselves post pandemic. We have brilliant universities and brilliant research collaborations going on across the world. We now need to maximise those partnerships globally. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sarfraz, that it is not just about space; it is about all the other side events that can come into fruition from better collaboration.
Lord McNally (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is very clear from what the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, said, that we have been down this road before. Some of us are old enough to remember Blue Streak and Black Arrow. What is needed first from the Minister is a clear commitment to a long-term strategy for the space industry. In doing that, will he clarify for us what the role of the national space council will be and how it will act as a conduit between the private and public sectors? Will the Minister also tell us whether either academic or commercial space co-operation will be inhibited by the powers in the National Security and Investment Bill now before Parliament? As a last thought, will he consider using his diplomatic and negotiating skills to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, to return to government to give the sector the political vision and commitment that it needs?
Lord Lennie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, from Labour’s Front Bench I welcome the noble Lords, Lord Parker and Lord Johnson, who spoke earlier, and I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Frost, who we will hear from in about 45 seconds’ time. There is a guy, Sanjeev Gupta, who currently rents a one-bedroom flat above a hairdresser’s on Lewisham High Street so that he can work from home. Sanjeev is a geologist, and in his flat he has five computers and two other screens for Zoom meetings. He is helping to direct and control the movements of Perseverance to drill and collect samples to help determine whether there has ever been life on Mars. Compare his endeavour with the Government’s investment in OneWeb, against the advice of experts and the concerns of the space agency. Is this OneWeb investment part of the UK’s global navigation satellite system? If not, what is it? As we have heard, OneWeb continues to manufacture its satellites in Florida. The high-skilled, well-paid jobs will come only if we get our investment and industrial strategy in sync—or are we destined, like Sanjeev Gupta, to rent more flats in Lewisham from which to explore the final frontier?
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Frost) (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is an honour to make my maiden speech in this debate and it is a privilege to do so here. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, for initiating this debate. I know, not least because I was an official in his department when he was the Minister responsible for this issue, that he has a long-standing and most important interest in this subject. Under his leadership, he reinvigorated this country’s work on the space sector, and where we are now is very much the product of his efforts. We intend to build on them to the benefit of the whole country. He made a number of very important points and, indeed, listed some challenges, as did many other noble Lords, and I will respond to them as I go.
First, however, I begin with thank yous. They may be traditional but they are no less heartfelt for that. I thank Black Rod and the Clerk of the Parliaments for their help and advice, and I thank the doorkeepers, who, in the short time since my introduction, have been unfailingly helpful and friendly. I am grateful to my two introducers: my noble friend Lord Shinkwin—a friend and colleague from our time supporting this country’s great wine and spirits industries—and my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, a distinguished Minister in many capacities and currently in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Johnson of Marylebone and the noble Lord, Lord Parker of Minsmere, on their incisive maiden speeches, the latter particularly on his distinguished future appointment.
As has been said, it is also my own maiden speech today. I have spent most of my life working on international relations in various capacities—on international trade, as the head of trade associations and, of course, as a diplomat—although I fear I seem to have acquired a rather undiplomatic reputation during the last year or two in negotiating with our European friends. It has been an honour to have been part, for 25 years, of the best diplomatic corps in the world. I am delighted to rejoin in this House many former colleagues from that world, all more distinguished than I in the depth of their knowledge and breadth of their experience. I look forward to debating with them, as I am sure I will, but more importantly to learning from their expertise.
I now turn to my subject. The UK has an extraordinary history of discovery and innovation. We remain a global innovation leader and we want to cement the UK’s place as a science superpower. Our aim is to invest in science and research that will deliver economic growth and societal benefits for decades to come, and to build the foundations for the industries of tomorrow. Space technology is a clear example of what can be done. The global space market could be worth more than $1 trillion by 2040. The past decade has, indeed, brought a global space revolution and the exploitation of space is vital to our economic future. As my noble friend Lord Holmes said, it is a frontier of possibilities.
In the UK, we are pioneering a new space age. On the back of the Space Industry Act 2018, we have established a new National Space Council to co-ordinate space policy. I reassure my noble friends Lord Willetts and Lord Moylan and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that we will publish very soon—this summer—the new national space strategy to boost UK space innovation, and that it will be appropriately funded. Our space sector already employs 42,000 people across the country, from Cornwall’s Goonhilly Earth Station to a future Shetlands space centre. The Government are working to help every region to benefit. My noble friend Lady Verma underlined the importance of making sure that the whole country benefits. We are backing plans for a network of space hubs to attract commercial investment. It is very important that all this work, as the noble Lord, Lord St John, said, supports the aims of boosting maximum growth across the country.
From Guildford to Glasgow, the UK is already home to world-leading small satellite manufacturers. Now we want to be Europe’s best destination for launching them into orbit too. I agree with many noble Lords who noted that there is competition for this facility. We are investing £40 million to ensure that we match up to that. My noble friend Lady Mobarik raised the potential spaceport in Scotland, and I can reassure her that we are considering appropriate plans for both the sites she mentioned. We are very conscious of the spin-off benefits for communities wherever facilities eventually settle.
We expect the first launches in 2022 and I reassure my noble friend Lord Johnson that of course we intend the regulatory framework to be in place by then. On that point, which my noble friend Lord Willetts also raised, our rules will be based on the world’s most modern space legislation, building on industry consultation to ensure safety and drive innovation. Of course, outside the EU, as he said, we also have the ability to set these rules for ourselves and create the best possible context for innovation and growth. It is certainly not our policy to have more complicated legislation than the European Union in any area, and my own responsibilities as Minister for the opportunities of Brexit underline why we will take this seriously.
My noble friend also raised our aspirations for OneWeb and associated issues. I note the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, the noble Lord, Lord Birt, and many others, and the controversy that still surrounds this investment. We believe that it was a justified risk and will show benefits in the future. We are committed to making a success of our investment in OneWeb, and we anticipate that the satellite communications service will be live at the end of this year. The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, asked about our share in OneWeb. We have invested £500 million and we maintain a significant share in OneWeb. This will obviously dilute over time but we will retain a special share, giving us the final say over the company’s future and the technology that it uses.
We are also working across government, including the Ministry of Defence of course, to ensure resilient delivery of positional navigation and timing. This is central to underpinning the UK’s critical national infrastructure. The space-based positioning, navigation and timing programme is currently analysing a number of innovative options for capability in this area, including different satellites at different orbits. We will set out our requirements soon.
As my noble friend Lord Bates and many other noble Lords said, although we aspire to be a leading space power in our own right, we cannot achieve everything that we want to achieve without international collaboration. As has been said, the UK is a proud founding member of the European Space Agency. Currently, we invest more than £370 million annually in the agency, ensuring that UK scientists and engineers take lead roles in ground-breaking missions. As many noble Lords mentioned, last month the European Space Agency made its first call for new astronauts since 2008. I very much hope that we shall see new British candidates to follow Tim Peake in reaching for the stars, inspired by the huge opportunities before us.
Our EU trade agreement, which I negotiated, has opened the door to our continued partnership in the world’s largest earth observation programme, Copernicus. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked about other EU programmes. In those negotiations, we were not able to reach a satisfactory outcome that would have enabled participation in our interests.
We are also investing in new broader international partnerships. Only last week, the UK signed the world’s first space bridge with Australia, deepening a space relationship that goes back to the test launch of the Black Arrow rocket from Woomera in South Australia, 51 years ago today. My noble friend Lord Willetts raised COP 26. We are committed to ensuring that it is used to showcase world-leading scientific expertise in this and many other areas. Also on international collaboration, my noble friend Lord Willetts raised the space international partnership programme. This is the biggest such programme and is world beating. We will take his points into account as we consider the future of this programme and its funding. We will also reflect on the suggestions from the noble Lords, Lord Mountevans and Lord Cromwell, regarding the governance of space—a new frontier, as has been said—and an international space organisation. We will draw this to the attention of the responsible Minister.
UK space businesses need skills and technology to compete. That is why, last week, we announced new support for a space sector export academy to help build valuable trade skills. We are using space to support STEM education, notably by helping university students and apprentices to access placements in our thriving space enterprises.
I note, and will reflect on, the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, about access for disabled communities and others in this whole area. I will draw this to the attention of the responsible Ministers.
Last year, the UK Space Agency launched its national space innovation programme—the UK’s first dedicated fund for cutting-edge space technologies. Partnerships with the private sector are of course also critical. If I may be forgiven another personal allusion in a maiden speech, I come from the greatest city in the East Midlands, the city of Derby, where my parents spent their working lives at that great British company Rolls Royce. That is why I was personally pleased to see the Government’s announcement in January of a partnership with Rolls Royce to investigate the possibility of nuclear power in space exploration. This will be a genuinely game-changing technology.
On space and defence, as my noble friend Lord Lancaster mentioned, last year we announced the new joint Space Command and have recently appointed its first commander, Air Commodore Paul Godfrey. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord West, that we are committed to protecting national security in space, as we are anywhere else. This is the first priority of the Government. We are committed to countering aggression in space and, as has been said, we have worked to achieve the UN resolution on responsible behaviours in space—once again, a first.
To conclude, I thank my noble friend Lord Willetts once again for raising this important question. I have tried to answer all the many rich points made in this debate, and of course I will review Hansard and write if there are any points that I have failed to deal with. This Government are backing British businesses and scientists to ensure the maximum benefit: economic, scientific and, as my noble friend Lord Bates said so eloquently, for the imagination. Our space programme will forge the next chapter in our space story.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, perhaps I might presume to congratulate the Minister on his maiden speech and extend to him a very warm welcome both to the House and to his ministerial post. I also congratulate all the speakers on the discipline with which we have conducted this debate—including the maiden speakers, who have shown great promise for future contributions to the House.
That completes the business before the Grand Committee this afternoon. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room. The Committee is adjourned.
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them brief and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Video-sharing Platforms: BBFC Ratings
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Grade of Yarmouth
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to mandate the use of British Board of Film Classifications ratings for user-generated content on video sharing platforms.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, the British Board of Film Classification’s age ratings are currently used by a number of video-on-demand providers. Although adoption is voluntary, we welcome their use. The video-sharing platform regime, for which Ofcom is the regulator, came into force on 1 November 2020. UK-established video-sharing platforms must now take appropriate measures to protect the public, including minors, from illegal and harmful material. Video-sharing platforms may adopt age ratings as an appropriate measure; however, they are not obliged to do so.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Con) [V]
I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply, but there is a wider issue with BBFC certification. The recently launched Disney streaming service ran a documentary originally certificated by the BBFC as suitable for those aged 18 and over. Disney chose to self-certificate it as suitable for 12 and over. Believe me, some scenes in that documentary were truly horrific. To protect children, will the Government, as a matter of urgency, bang heads together and get every streaming service to sign up to the BBFC system, which is tried and trusted?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I agree with my noble friend’s last remark about this system being trusted. The Government have great trust in the BBFC’s best-practice age ratings. On his suggestion that we bang heads together, we aim to approach things more gently, but we are actively engaging with the industry to encourage other platforms to adopt the BBFC’s ratings across all their content, and will keep the evidence for legislation in this area under review.
Baroness Rawlings (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare a past interest as a member of the first British video classification council, chaired by Lord Harewood. It was difficult then, so I ask the Minister how parents can be expected to manage their children’s screen time today, when there is such a lack of regulation and a slow government response.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend makes a valid point, and I know that parents have had extraordinary challenges in this area, particularly over the last year. She is aware that we are developing a media literacy strategy and that, last year, we published guidance on online safety for children. We should also remember that our broadcasters have educated, entertained and informed our children in the last year.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
The Government’s response to the online harms White Paper says that:
“The regulator will be required to have regard to the fact that children have different needs at different ages when preparing codes of practice relevant to the protection of children.”
What powers will Ofcom have to provide sufficient oversight and ensure enforcement of these additional protections? Will they be set out in the online safety Bill?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I assure the noble Viscount that they will be set out in the legislation. Ofcom will have wide-ranging powers to tackle both illegal and harmful content. I am happy to write to him with more detail.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
In December, the Minister spoke of the voluntary nature of the BBFC scheme, which she reminded us of earlier for video-on-demand services. One of the strengths of the BBFC’s ratings is that they are well understood by parents and children alike. The same cannot be said for the inconsistent approaches adopted by platforms offering user-generated content. How do the Government plan to balance the undeniable need for change, to which noble Lords have referred, with their wish to minimise regulation, which is clearly not working at the moment?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord will be aware that the adoption of BBFC ratings, particularly by Netflix, is a relatively recent development, so we have not yet made an assessment of its impact on both accessibility of content and other streaming services. As I said to my noble friend Lord Grade, we are keeping this under review.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]
My Lords, YouGov research confirms that 82% of parents and 73% of children want BBFC age ratings displayed on user-generated content on these video-sharing platforms. Given new duties under the revised audio-visual media services directive to protect children, and with the promised duty of care, is not actual regulation from the Government needed to make sure that these platforms work with the trusted ratings from the BBFC to better protect children? Are not the Government running against the tide?
Baroness Barran (Con)
We do not believe that we are running against the tide. The online harms legislation, which we have discussed extensively in this House and which I know we will debate in great detail in future, will make us a world leader in this regard.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, sensibly regulating the wild west of user-generated content on the internet is essential, but potentially a whack-a-mole exercise, given the risk that it simply displaces activity elsewhere. How will the DCMS work with Ofcom to ensure that its implementation of the video-sharing platform regime develops understanding of how to regulate online services, in advance of the online safety Bill coming into force?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend makes an important point. By the implementation of the video-sharing platform regime, as he suggests, Ofcom will build its experience in regulating harmful content while balancing freedom of expression. I understand that Ofcom is already preparing for its new responsibilities in relation to online harms by bringing in new technology and people with the right skills.
Lord Taylor of Warwick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest in that for 10 years I was a vice-president of the BBFC. While the adoption of the BBFC’s age ratings is currently voluntary, does the Minister welcome the fact that Netflix announced on 1 December last year that it had become the first platform to achieve complete coverage of its content under the BBFC’s ratings, and that a number of other video-on-demand platforms use BBFC ratings for some of their content, including Amazon Prime Video, Apple TV+, Curzon Home Cinema and BFI Player? Will she continue to engage with the industry to encourage other platforms to adopt the BBFC’s ratings across all their content?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Absolutely. The Government welcome Netflix’s decision and, as I mentioned earlier, we continue to work with a number of the providers in this area.
Baroness Kidron (CB) [V]
I refer the House to my interests on the register. Age rating is just one of the many tools needed to build the digital world that children deserve, but it is hugely important to children and families that are looking to curate an age-appropriate experience. Is the Minister aware that Apple and Google app stores routinely advertise apps and games as suitable for four-plus and nine-plus for services whose own terms and conditions state that they are only for 16-plus or adult use? This means that a child or parent will download an app on the false understanding that it is age appropriate. Does she agree that there is little point age-rating individual pieces of content if the largest companies in the world continue to mislabel products and services on an industrial scale?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I would be happy to discuss the matter that the noble Baroness raises with the relevant platforms and the Video Standards Council. We encourage online store fronts to follow the BBFC best practice for labelling online apps, which includes signing up to the international age rating coalition system.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Esports. Does the Minister agree that in protecting children’s rights, the views of gamers, children and teachers should be taken into account when considering a combination of age labelling, filters and parental controls, and that tools such as URI which provide age ratings for UGC available via online video-sharing platform services are exceptionally helpful in this context?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend is right that the views of children, gamers and teachers are important. Under the video-sharing platform regime, UK-established platforms will be required to take appropriate measures to protect all their users from illegal content and minors from harmful content. Those measures could include a combination of age labelling, filters, parental controls and technical tools.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the second Oral Question.
Data Protection Act 2018: Children
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kidron
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to their call for views and evidence for the Review of Representative Action Provisions, Section 189 Data Protection Act 2018, published on 27 August 2020, what plans they have to reflect the views of the children consulted as part of the Review in changes to the Data Protection Act 2018.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran)
My Lords, DCMS officials consulted children directly as part of the call for views. Children who responded pointed to a lack of awareness about how to complain to the ICO or take action against a data controller when things go wrong. That is why we have committed to work with the ICO and other interested parties to raise awareness about the redress mechanisms available to all data subjects, including children. Our focus is on improving the operation of current law, rather than making legislative changes.
Baroness Kidron (CB) [V]
I thank the noble Baroness for her response. However, the other thing that children said in the Government’s own review was that 96% of them thought that charities should be able to represent them—and that they had a “lack of support” and
“had not heard of the ICO.”
As the noble Baroness said, they also lacked awareness of how companies such as advertisers might use their personal data—so they may not even know that they have a problem. As such, I challenge the noble Baroness to say that only a handful people can successfully understand and challenge data protection law.
The other thing is that the Government’s reasoning was that children now benefit from the protections of the age-appropriate design code, so I ask the noble Baroness, as Minister for Youth Policy and DCMS: how do the Government reconcile wilfully ignoring the views of children—in favour of the business interests of the tech sector—with their duties under Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is that views must be heard in “matters affecting the child”? Are we to understand from this that—
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, could the noble Baroness curtail her question? It is time for the Minister to reply.
Baroness Kidron (CB) [V]
I beg your pardon. Is it the Government’s position to adopt protections for children and then block meaningful routes of redress?
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
It is very important that those people asking supplementary questions keep them to a sensible time—otherwise, it simply knocks out other speakers lower down the list.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I reject the noble Baroness’s suggestion that the Government are blocking off meaningful means of redress. Our current data protection laws already offer strong protections to people, including children and other vulnerable groups, and we will continue to assist them in exercising their rights. Through the review, we sought, and have listened to, the views of children and their parents, and we are working with the Information Commissioner’s Office to raise awareness of the redress mechanisms available to them. Finally, civil society groups can still make complaints on behalf of children, as the noble Baroness suggests.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is very hard to square the two strands that the Minister is dwelling on: that children were in favour of more legislation to help them challenge the issues concerned with their data, but also that there was not a strong enough case for introducing legislation. Given that the consequence of that decision, as has been said, is more children suffering from identity theft, online grooming, data profiling and microtargeting, can the Minister help us by explaining what would have been a strong enough case?
Baroness Barran (Con)
As the noble Lord is aware, we considered the views of children and business, but the real issue here is less what would be a strong enough case and more whether the existing law is adequate—which we believe it is—and whether it needs to be implemented in a way that allows all data subjects to seek redress more easily, which it does; that is what we are working on.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that there is a pressing need for much greater levels of awareness and understanding? Furthermore, does would she agree that it is crucial that we enable our young people, and indeed all people, to be financially, digitally and—crucially—data literate and aware?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right, and that is why we focused, and will publish later this year, our media literacy strategy. This was absolutely underlined by the responses from parents.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, is my noble friend aware of just how time-consuming it is for a young person to go through a complaint under the ICO rules, which is something I personally have done and have helped children with? Does she not consider it worth making it very clear to children that the civil society organisations representing them can do the bulk of the work, without constantly having to refer back to the child?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend makes a fair point about the complexity in this area, but the ICO has been very clear that it will investigate companies that do not comply with the GDPR concerns reported to it—and that it will accept referrals and complaints from civil society organisations, which can play an important role.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, as a family judge, I regularly talked to children, some of them very young, about what they wanted to happen to them at the end of the proceedings. May I urge the Minister really and seriously to listen to children—because they very often have something extremely valuable to say?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I entirely concur with the noble and learned Baroness.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, when I read the government response to the call for evidence, it struck me that it is as important, if not more so, to take account of and reflect on adequate protections and to ensure that they are in place for young people, who evidently have a distinct lack of knowledge and awareness about, for example, how an advertiser might use their personal data. If the noble Baroness agrees with me on that point, what thought have she and her department given to delivering that extra protection by non-legislative means? If she has any examples to share, I am sure the House would welcome them.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord makes an important point, particularly in relation to adtech. As he will be aware, the ICO has recently reopened its investigation into it, which it had to pause last year because of Covid-19 constraints. If it is to be effective, our media literacy strategy needs to cover all these points, including giving children and their parents an understanding of how their data is used.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, among millions of disadvantaged parents and children, awareness of data protection and online harms in general is very fragmented. Could the Minister assure the House that the children consulted came from all sorts of backgrounds to give a broader picture? Does she agree that we cannot leave it to parents and teachers to manage the complexity of data protection—particularly in the context of online harms and safeguarding children from grooming and sexual exploitation—without government leadership with structural safety legislation?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness is right that it is important that we always talk to a wide range of children, which we always seek to do. She is also right that the responsibility to sort this out should not fall to the child or parents; really, we need this to be addressed much earlier on, which is one of the reasons that, in addition to the age-appropriate design code, the Government are developing a one-stop shop to give companies practical guidance about keeping children safer online.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister comment on what steps the Government will take to stop organisations’ growing use of “legitimate interest” to get around cookie refusals? What will HMG now do to help improve knowledge of data protection rights and the Information Commissioner’s Office among young people? It is clear from this review that they are, in the main, not aware of what is done with their personal data or that they can complain to the ICO.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend is right; as other noble Lords have noted, this is a challenging area for young people in relation to making complaints. She asked specifically about “legitimate interest”, and I will write to her on that.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab) [V]
[Inaudible]—2021, seek children’s views. They were rejected because they were asking whether children’s voluntary sector organisations should represent them in presenting those views. I understand that this was rejected because there was a lack of evidence; could the Minister explain this?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I apologise; I did not hear the first part of the noble Baroness’s question because it was cut off, so I will respond in writing.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked, and we now move on to the third Oral Question.
EU: Fishing Industry Negotiations
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they had with representatives of the fishing industry in the United Kingdom during negotiations for the United Kingdom-European Union Trade and Cooperation Agreement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con) [V]
My Lords—[Inaudible.] During the negotiation of the trade and co-operation agreement, Ministers and officials met frequently with representatives of the fishing industry, including the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, to update them on the negotiations and discuss their views on them.
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his Answer. The issue of fisheries was raised in your Lordships’ House last Thursday. The end of December 2020 saw us leaving the EU, and during that time, we had a rolling commentary on the Brexit negotiation on fisheries and how we would be taking back our waters. The truth is we have not—not to the extent that fishermen thought we would. Did members of the fisheries organisations take part in the Brexit negotiation? Does the Minister think that if they had been part of the negotiation, it would have had a better outcome? The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations had written to the Prime Minister on this matter back in February—
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
[Inaudible.] The noble Lord, Lord Frost, and other Ministers and officials were in close touch with the fishing interests. The trade co-operation agreement has made some progress, increasing quota, ensuring regulatory autonomy and no tariffs, and controlling access to fish in our waters.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, have the difficulties been resolved with the health of shellfish being sent to Europe and with sending Scottish seafood to the EU, particularly in respect of consignments made up from more than one source?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, there is an overall improvement in the situation, but we all agree that more work needs to be done. That is why Defra has invited exporters to in-depth workshops, 11 of them in the past few weeks, on issues including export health certificates. We are also working closely with the Scottish Government, Food Standards Scotland and other government departments to learn from the establishment and operation of existing hubs in Scotland. Although the situation is improving, we in Defra and other government bodies are doing considerable work.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, there is an immediate, pressing problem for many of our fishermen, who are suffering. What are Her Majesty’s Government doing to increase fish consumption in the domestic market? Do we need a fish and chips tsar or someone to encourage people to eat fish? More importantly, in the negotiations with the EU, will the Government work towards a flexible arrangement that allows for better quota swaps?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, we will be pragmatic and we will work robustly with the EU and, indeed, with Norway and the Faroe Islands. Importantly, Defra and Seafish are working together on the Love Seafood campaign precisely to encourage the domestic consumption of excellent fish that hitherto we may not have consumed.
Baroness Quin (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the situation seems to make a mockery of the Prime Minister’s claim that his Brexit deal would involve
“no non-tariff barriers to trade.”
May I take up with the Minister the worrying situation in my local port of North Shields, which is England’s biggest prawn port and heavily dependent on exports to France and Spain, where trade continues to be severely disrupted by delays, complicated red tape and, in some cases, prohibitive extra costs?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, I would like the noble Baroness to let me have further details on this issue, which I will speak to the Fisheries Minister about, because we are having daily conversations with, for instance, the French embassy. I would like to hear more about the situation in North Shields; our task is to resolve these matters.
Lord Teverson (LD) [V]
My Lords, many parts of the industry are heading for bankruptcy, yet within the agreement we have the mechanism of a Specialised Committee on Fisheries, which has not yet met. The Minister, Victoria Prentis, recently said:
“Details on how the committee will function will be communicated once they are finalised.”
This is not good enough. Surely, the Government need to pull their finger out. In this third month of Brexit, when is this specialised committee actually going to meet?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, until the TCA has been ratified in the European Parliament, the Partnership Council and its specialised committees will not start to function. We in the UK are ready for them to be operational and are making our plans.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in February last year the Secretary of State wrote to the EU Commissioner raising concerns about its decision to ban the import of class B live bivalve molluscs. In a subsequent letter to food exporters, dated 10 December 2020, it was confirmed that exports of these molluscs would be prohibited. So, why did the Secretary of State claim in a parliamentary Statement this January that he had only recently been made aware of the situation, when, seemingly, he had known and done nothing about it for a year?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will look into this because that is entirely contrary to my understanding, which is that the European Commissioner made it clear that this was an acceptable trade. We were most surprised to hear that the export of live bivalve molluscs from class B waters would not be accepted. We think that that is not well founded in law and we have sought a meeting with Commissioner Kyriakides on this matter.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend join me in condemning recent illegal operations carried out by Greenpeace: dumping large boulders in shallow fishing waters, potentially causing great risk to fishing vessels and their crews? Can he assure me that adequate resources are being and will be made available to ensure effective protection of the UK’s fishing waters and fleet?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, everyone should take note of and abide by the regulations. The actions by Greenpeace within the Brighton Offshore Marine Conservation Zone are subject to a live investigation by the Marine Management Organisation. The Government have significantly increased the number of personnel and surveillance assets dedicated to fisheries protection.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, the Scottish seafood industry is world class but it has been let down by the lack of preparation for implementing this agreement beyond the negotiations, and by the political polarisation of the Scottish and UK Governments whenever these matters are discussed. Has the department, or the UK Government as whole, learned any lessons from this disaster? Will they seek a much more understanding, partnership-based, mutually respectful relationship with the Scottish Government in the future?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, again, I am interested in what the noble Lord has said because my experience, certainly at Fisheries Councils, is of strong collaboration between all the devolved Administrations. The Secretary of State has had regular dialogue with Fergus Ewing and that will continue, because we have a mutual interest in advancing the export and domestic consumption of excellent products from both Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, there is a balance to be struck between a thriving fishing industry and the conservation of fish stocks. The network of marine protected areas is at risk. Information from Greenpeace shows that destructive fishing boats spend hundreds of hours fishing inside places that are meant to be protected. While I do not condone the actions of Greenpeace, it is true that bottom trawlers and scallop dredgers are ripping up protected seabeds with impunity. What are the Government doing to correct this?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
We are ensuring through our sustainability objectives that all of the marine environment in the UK system is protected. That is what we intend to do, and that is why there were deliberations on the now enacted Fisheries Bill. We will be working on ensuring an improvement in our marine ecosystem.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the fourth Oral Question.
COVID-19 Vaccine Certification
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harris of Haringey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the statement by the Prime Minister on 23 February (HC Deb, col 627), when they will provide further details of their review of the potential role of COVID-19 vaccine certification; and what organisations will be involved in that review.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, as set out in the Covid-19 response document published last week, the Government will review whether Covid status certification could play a role in reopening our economy, reducing restrictions on social contact and improving safety. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will lead the review, and he is currently considering the approach to its conduct.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab) [V]
Covid passports would make things easier for travellers, care homes, venues and businesses, but there are also concerns about confidentiality and straying into making vaccines compulsory. Proper consent for any system of certification is vital, and the Government need to consult on this quickly and widely. How will that be done? There are also other issues, such as the risks of forgery and of people borrowing other people’s certification. How will those inspecting a Covid passport know, in the absence of a proper ID card or identity assurance system, whether the person presenting it is who they say they are and whether the certification applies to that person?
Lord True
My Lords, the noble Lord rightly sets out a number of issues that will have to be considered as the review goes forward. As the Prime Minister has said, there are deep and complex issues that we need to explore. We shall certainly draw on outside advice and opinion as we go forward.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Triesman. He is not here, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Scriven.
Lord Scriven (LD) [V]
My Lords, how will the Government mitigate the risk that introducing vaccine certificates will move toward a system of individual risk-scoring that could undermine public health by treating a collective problem as an individual one and reduce compliance with vital individual public health measures?
Lord True
My Lords, again, the noble Lord raises important considerations. As I have said, my right honourable friend is currently scoping areas for the review, and many issues will come up on both sides of the question, which will have to be carefully weighed. I can assure the noble Lord and others that Covid status certificates would not be a form of national identity card.
Lord O’Shaughnessy (Con) [V]
My Lords, last month the Ada Lovelace Institute published a report on the potential of vaccine passports. Among other recommendations, it called for the Government to engage with the public on this topic in order to build trust and legitimacy and also to understand what trade-offs the public are willing to make. What plans do the Government, and the review in particular, have to engage with the public so that we can build trust, not distrust, around status certificates?
Lord True
Again, there are obviously two strands here. There is the strand of international discussion about enabling international travel, which is subject to a review being conducted by my right honourable friend Mr Shapps, and there is the current review addressing the issues that noble Lords have been speaking about. As I have said, these are very early days—the review was announced only last week—but, as the Prime Minister said, we will seek the best scientific, moral, philosophical and ethical viewpoints on the way forward. Obviously, public opinion will be part of that.
Lord Loomba (CB) [V]
My Lords, a Covid variant first identified in Brazil has been found in the UK. Some variants, like this one, appear to be more contagious, and there are concerns that current vaccines may not work as well against them. The UK Government have already announced a deal with the biopharmaceutical company CureVac to develop vaccines against future variants, with a pre-order of 50 million doses. Can the Minister tell us what steps the Government will take to ensure that no vaccine will be approved unless the expected high standards of safety, quality and effectiveness are met as those new vaccines will be developed in as short a time as possible?
Lord True
My Lords, obviously I am not the lead Minister on vaccines, but what I do know, and I think the public know, is that our standards in this country in terms of assessing vaccines are among the highest in the world, if not the highest. The Government would never in any circumstances do anything that would jeopardise the safety of the public.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
On Monday the European Union announced plans for a digital green pass that will provide proof that a person has been vaccinated against Covid-19, as well as details of tests, and will “facilitate Europeans’ lives”. Are Her Majesty’s Government in discussion with the Commission about this—about working together—and will it be part of the proposed consultation?
Lord True
My Lords, as I say, there is a parallel strand here. The review that was announced is of the potential domestic application of Covid certification; the review of international travel is a separate strand. I can repeat what I have said before at this Dispatch Box: the Government are talking to all partners internationally about the work of trying to facilitate international travel when it is safe to do so. Obviously, we have to respond to the fact that other countries may decide that people need to show vaccinated status as a requirement for entry, but the Government are not currently looking to make it a requirement to have a vaccination certificate to come into this country.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, in considering whether to introduce vaccine certification, will the Government consult organisations representing patients who have been advised by their clinician that it would not be in their interest to take the vaccine? How would such patients be able to navigate a world in which vaccine certification was widely used?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, as ever, raises a very important and sensitive point. The Prime Minister has said that we cannot discriminate against people who, for whatever reason, cannot have the vaccine. I assure her that the review will certainly take that aspect into account.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register. I want to return to the vaccination certificate on a domestic issue, following on from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. Can the Minister ensure that, whatever system we end up with, it is very narrowly and clearly defined and has the consent of those who are excluded from its benefits as well as those who would derive benefits from having such a certificate?
Lord True (Con)
The noble Baroness makes an important point. As I have tried to indicate in this series of answers—I said at the outset that my right honourable friend is currently scoping the approach—your Lordships’ advice through all this will be very much valued and a range of opinions, including those just expressed, will have to be considered. As the Prime Minister has said, deep and complex issues are involved.
Lord Pickles (Con) [V]
My Lords, in those various discussions, will my noble friend consider the plight of a family travelling together where the adults are vaccinated and have a certificate but the children, including adolescents, are not? Is there a concern that a modern Morton’s fork is created, so that the efficiency and effectiveness of any certificate is undermined identically whether the accompanying children have a Covid-19 test or not? Has my noble friend noted that this dilemma in countries which use a vaccine certificate domestically has resulted in the certificate having only a marginal impact?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, again, my noble friend brings forward an issue—the situation of a family with children, whether in a pub or travelling—which will have to be considered and addressed. I assure him that his point will be taken into account.
Baroness Bull (CB)
Will the Minister ensure that the review considers the impact of introducing vaccine certificates on the cultural and entertainment sectors, and both the commercial and the ethical implications for them? Any form of passporting will likely impact disproportionately on those communities already excluded, and the integration of health data into cultural participation is a worrying shift from the social to the medical model of disability. Can the Minister confirm the review will include a full equality impact assessment?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, as I have said, my right honourable friend is currently scoping the approach to the review. On the point made by the noble Baroness, I repeat what the Prime Minister said: we will reach out to get the best moral, philosophical and ethical viewpoints on this issue. That will include all the points raised in this House today.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. That brings Question Time to an end.
Covid-19 Update
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for this Statement. I agree with the Statement in congratulating the NHS on its rollout of the vaccine, which continues to be a huge cause for optimism and hope, as does the science and research, in which the UK has played a leading role. However, we are still the country that has the third highest number of deaths in the world, at 124,000. Given the success of the vaccine and the strength of our science base, that is dismal. It must at least in part be attributed to decisions that the Government have taken or not taken, the failure of test and trace to do the job that we need it to do and the porous nature of our borders, on which we have again seen decisions taken too little, too late.
The concern about new variants means that, if the UK does not get on top of them, the valiant efforts of our NHS, our scientists and the vaccine could be terribly undermined. In January and February, cases here were running at tens of thousands a day and we were in lockdown, as we still are, because of our home- grown, new infectious variant. Nevertheless, people were allowed to fly in from abroad, bringing the P1 Brazilian mutation with them. Throughout history, epidemic after epidemic has exploited international travel. Surely it is obvious that tougher border controls should have been in place sooner.
The Brazilian variant cases arrived a month ago. They showed the problems of delays as well as the limitations of the pre-travel tests that did not catch those cases. Even now, 99% of the 15,000 daily arrivals are not covered by hotel quarantine. Most people can still travel home from the airport by Tube, train or even plane, mixing with others, as some of these travellers did, without being tested on arrival in the UK. Why are the Government still refusing to introduce additional tests on arrival and still allowing international passengers to travel onward on UK public transport? Does the Minister recognise that those gaps in the system will let more new variant cases spread? Is it also the case that there is a risk of cross-infection at airports where congestion is occurring? I understand that yesterday there were queues that lasted for several hours at Heathrow. What are the Government going to do about this? It is shocking that people are mixing, having arrived from a list of countries at risk, instead of going straight into hotels for isolation.
Of course, I welcome the progress that the Government have made in identifying the batch of tests from which that of the missing infected person came, but how on earth can a test be processed that does not collect contact details? What mechanisms have been put in place to fix that for the future? Some £22 billion have been allocated to this system, but it feels as though someone has vanished into thin air. How is the hunt for this person proceeding? Can the Minister assure us that this will not happen again?
Is there any information suggesting why this variant is spreading? The Minister might recall that John Edmunds from SAGE told the Home Affairs Select Committee in January that for every identified South African variant case, there were probably another 30 that had not been identified. Can the Minister tell the House, therefore, whether he has received any estimates of the number of unidentified cases in the wider community?
We are in a race against the evolution of this virus, so we have a long way to go. To be frank, nowhere is Covid-safe until everywhere is Covid-safe. None of us wants to yo-yo in and out of lockdown, so will the Minister guarantee that the lockdown easing will, as promised, be absolutely based on data, not dates, and that the assessment time between each step will not be compromised?
I welcome the extra surge in testing, but what is the current timeframe for genetic sequencing? How can it be speeded up? What steps will be taken to ensure that areas such as Ashfield, Leicester, Watford, Worthing and Hyndburn are not left behind when the national lockdown restrictions begin to lift, or will those places be put in localised lockdowns? Will the local authorities there be given extra resources to do more door-to-door testing and retrospective tracing? Will workplaces in those areas be inspected by the Health and Safety Executive to ensure that they are Covid-secure? Will people finally be given decent sick pay and isolation support?
On the Budget, it beggars belief that it did not include any detailed plans for the NHS. Indeed, the OBR highlights this, saying:
“The Government’s spending plans make no explicit provision for virus-related costs beyond 2021-22, despite its Roadmap recognising that annual vaccination programmes and continued testing and tracing are likely to be required.”
We know that the last reorganisation of the NHS cost £3 billion and that does not seem to have been put into the Budget either. Can the Minister explain how the NHS will catch up with the enormous backlog that has been created, as well as the ongoing pandemic-related costs? This is an urgent question.
It has also emerged that the Government appear to have delayed social care reforms until 2022, with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Stephen Barclay, telling campaigners that plans for sustainable improvement will only come next year. In January, the Prime Minister told Parliament that the Government would bring forward plans later this year, so will the Minister confirm whether it is this year or next year or when they actually intend to launch reforms on social care?
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, from these Benches we, too, congratulate everyone involved in the vaccination process, including our brilliant teams of scientists, both in this country and abroad, who have been working—and continue to work—tirelessly on safe and effective vaccines for the world. We also congratulate the teams who are organising and managing the supply chains and all of those on the front line delivering jabs in arms, or supporting them to make it possible to reach the target of 20 million doses achieved this week. We will also not forget everyone working on Covid at the moment, whether front-line staff in health and social care or back-office staff who may not be visible to us but who are making sure that all these processes are working. We thank them all.
It is reassuring to hear that the second jab supply chain has been factored in, but can the Minister please tell the House if the supply chain and vaccination dose capacity is also protected for the next priority groups due to receive their first dose? This is critical to lifting lockdown.
It is good news that the clinical trials under way since before Christmas are demonstrating that the over-80s are developing good antibodies to resist the coronavirus and that this is now evident in the data. It is fascinating to see the vaccine gap in graphs, showing that there is a much steeper decline in cases in the over- 75s than there is in the under-60s. It is also encouraging to see reports that there have been very few side effects to both the AZ and the Pfizer vaccines. Can the Minister say if this information will be used to encourage those who have so far refused their first dose?
The Octave trial, funded by the Medical Research Council, is now under way, assessing whether those people with compromised immune systems are able to make antibodies. It was reassuring to read the details of this trial from some participating universities and university hospitals and I am grateful that Professor Chris Whitty was able to outline this project in a briefing to parliamentarians recently. I had understood it to be well under way already, although the press release makes it sound as if it is much more recent and still recruiting. Can the Minister say when the Octave trials are likely to publish their results, given that many people currently shielding are anxiously waiting for them?
The Statement refers to the Brazilian P1 variant and to the case of the individual who had not completed their form correctly. There has been silence over the last couple of days, and I wondered whether the Minister could update the House on the search for this individual. As I raised earlier this week, can the Minister help the House to understand why such an issue was able to happen at all? Is it correct that there are no processes in place to ensure that, as people come into the UK, border agency staff check their passports against the online forms completed in advance, so that personal details, such as addresses, are visible? The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, made it plain—as have many others travelling into the UK—that these checks are rarely made, if at all.
Is it correct that local health and resilience forums are not given any details of people quarantining in their areas? This is important to ensure that care support teams would be able to check and provide help for those quarantining if they have any concerns. That might have helped with this particular case: a traveller from Brazil feeling unwell would have had a local contact to talk to about what to do.
Finally, as we wait to see if cases, hospitalisations and deaths have reduced enough to start lifting lockdown carefully in April, can the Minister respond to the report published today showing that test and trace has barely used the check-in app data from visitors to pubs, restaurants and hairdressers, resulting in thousands of people who have been checked in not being warned that they might be at risk of infection? The report states that the Department of Health and Social Care has noted that more than 100 million people have checked into venues since it went live in the autumn, but only 284 alerts have been sent to 274 venues—not 274,000 venues, just 274. Worse, the report says that the lack of guidance for local resilience forum trace teams on how to use the data has left businesses being asked to, or volunteering to, contact customers and visitors, which is technically a breach of GDPR and leaves those businesses and venues open to potential legal challenge.
After spending £40 million on the contact tracing app, encouraging the public to act responsibly, and the department saying today:
“The NHS COVID-19 App is an important tool in our pandemic response”,
can the Minister tell us which of these statements are true? Can he confirm that the guidance given to local authority health departments on how to use the data to notify people from the app is in full compliance with GDPR legislation? Is the figure of only 274 venues receiving alerts correct—yes or no? What steps are the Government taking to remedy this before pubs, restaurants, hairdressers and non-essential retail begin to open again?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, I am enormously grateful for the questions from both the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Brinton. I start by echoing both their tributes to those involved in the rollout of the vaccine. It is a remarkable national achievement and we should all be enormously proud. My own wife was vaccinated last week, and she told me that she cried as she left the GP’s surgery—so moved was she by the experience. That is something I have heard many times before.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, paid tribute to all those involved in science and research, and I absolutely agree. This has been a remarkable moment for British science. We will start celebrating British Science Week tomorrow, and I cannot think of a more apt moment to do that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked about the highest number of deaths. There are a number of reasons. Before I move on, I mention that today is World Obesity Day, and one of the most telling pieces of research that has come out in recent weeks is the work of PHE. We must all reflect on the nation’s health and whether obesity has played a role in Britain’s higher incidence of mortality. I look forward to reflecting on this issue more in the future.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked directly about the decisions that the Government have made, test and trace, and the borders. Let me tackle those head on. On the decisions that the Government have made, I share with the Chamber that the road map announced by the Prime Minister has landed extremely well. It is extremely conservative. It puts school openings first, which is undoubtedly the feedback we have had from both parents and the country at large. The easing of measures for the rest of the economy and civic activity is based entirely on the data that emerges from the infection rates and will be done in a way that contains the spread of the virus.
I reassure the noble Baroness that the test and trace operation has developed remarkable capacity, and both the turnaround times for the testing and the effectiveness of the tracing have now emerged as being fantastic. The tracing of the Brazilian variant pays tribute to the effectiveness of the test and trace operation, as does Project Eagle, which has been mainly focused on the South African variant. We believe that the spread of the South African variant has been largely contained by the tracing of the Project Eagle team working closely with local authorities and infection control teams around the world. It shows what we can do with this remarkable resource.
With regard to borders, the “red list” and managed quarantine system has been stood up in an extremely effective way. The families in south Gloucestershire and Aberdeen isolated themselves, as they should have done, and the handling of their variant of concern has been professional. I am led to believe that progress is being made on tracking down our Brazilian friend, the one stray person with the disease.
In answer to the question of how someone could have a test without filling in the form, we believe that there are two ways in which that could happen. Someone could walk up to a testing site, have their test but not fill in the form properly, or they could have had the test sent to them in the post and returned it without filling in the correct form. There are lessons to be learned from both potential models, and we are communicating with those who provide tests to ensure that barcodes are put on all tests.
We have to run a risk-based analysis on cross-infection at airports and infection control within airports. We could close all airports—that could be one way of doing it—but, under the circumstances, I applaud both the airlines and the airports for putting in mitigation and hygiene measures which the CMO’s office believes will be effective.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked about sequencing. We have stood up an enormous amount of new sequencing—30,000 samples a week is our current capacity—and we have dramatically reduced the time it takes to do sequencing. The biggest problem with that is transporting the samples around the country, and therefore we are looking at distributing sequencing capacity to the Lighthouse laboratories so that once a sample tests positive, it can be automatically taken to a plate to be sequenced at the same location. We believe that that could make a big impact.
One lesson from Project Eagle I share with the House is that door-to-door tracing is quite effective, but by far the most effective means of tracing has been intelligence-led tracing. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked about the check-in data, and this has been its power: it has allowed us to trace those who may have bumped into others in, for instance, areas of hospitality. It is not the objective of that check-in data to send out alerts to large numbers of people who may have been present in a location; it is more about empowering the forensic contact tracing necessary to track down potential connections.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked about NHS plans. I will focus on one particular area and one of the lessons we have had from recent weeks. We have done an enormous amount to contain the spread of disease and we have seen—partly because of the lockdown, partly because of the wearing of masks, partly because of hygiene—a dramatic reduction in the amount of flu and gastroenteritis across the country. It is not an unrealistic ambition to hope that NHS resources could and should be focused on reducing contagious diseases across the piece and use the lessons from testing, hygiene and diagnostics generally to massively reduce the impact of contagious diseases. That will have huge benefits to the capacity of the NHS to combat sickness and ill health generally.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her kind remarks on the contribution of those in the back office of the NHS. I am sometimes admonished by those who say that there is simply too much white-collar, managerial wastage in the NHS. I do not accept that criticism, and the rollout of the vaccine shows the immense management muscularity at the NHS which is able to organise such a huge national programme with such efficiency and courtesy.
The noble Baroness asked about clinical trials. I celebrate the fact that the large amount of really encouraging evidence that we have had has vindicated the decision by the JCVI, the MHRA and the CMO to prioritise the first dose over the distribution of second doses and to bring in the 12-week gap. That was a wise, pragmatic and impactful decision and we thank those involved.
The noble Baroness is entirely right that the large take-up among older people will have a big impact on younger people. The most influential people in anyone’s life are the people whom they love and live with. I cannot think of a better way of marketing it to younger people than the older people whom they love and live with taking the vaccine.
I also pay tribute to Professor Paul Moss and the team at Octave who are working extremely hard on the impact of the vaccine on those with immune deficiency. As the noble Baroness alluded to, the work at the University of Birmingham is at pace. It has been going on for some months, and its impact is already being shared among professionals. I am not sure whether there is an official report planned, but I reassure her that the insight and intelligence from their work is being shared across the system.
Finally, I give enormous praise to all those currently working on our borders. The situation in other countries remains extremely concerning. Variants of concern are rising in many countries, and in Europe infection rates remain extremely high. We have put in place measures on our borders that have the capacity to protect us from these variants of concern and I am enormously grateful to all those concerned who have strengthened those positions.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the 30 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, the speed and scale of the vaccine rollout is indeed a remarkable achievement and reflects great credit to all involved. The House will have noted the publication this morning of the REACH study based on data from February. Among its findings was that there was some regional variation in prevalence, particularly in the later part of February. Will the Government on this basis consider regional variation in the pace at which restrictions are lifted, rather than necessarily assuming that it will be a uniform, national approach?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My noble friend is entirely right to raise the issue of regional variation. It had been our profound hope to be able to adjust and to focus lockdown arrangements on geographical locations so that national measures were not the only tool in our toolkit. The evidence from last year suggests that the amount of travel that individuals do makes regional and local lockdowns only partially effective. This has put a massive question mark over the way in which we can use regional and local lockdowns. There is more work to be done to understand exactly how that works but he is right to raise it as a considerable issue.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to congratulate the Minister on behalf of the Government on what has been achieved in lockdown. It is absolutely fantastic. I want to ask two questions. First, bearing in mind that some 20 million people have now been vaccinated, do the Government have any assessment of the number of people who still contract the disease after having had the vaccination? Secondly, do the Government have any idea about the relative impact of side-effects of the different vaccines?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I have nothing but good news on both those important issues. The number of people who have mild or profound sickness, need hospitalisation or die after having the vaccine is extremely small indeed. There is some differential when we come to the variants of concern. Certainly, mild disease has been observed with the South African variant by sources in South Africa and we are working to understand that. However, severe hospitalisation and death are massively reduced by all the vaccines. The side-effects from all the vaccines on all age groups and on people with almost all comorbidities are extremely small. The yellow list information published by the MHRA is extremely reassuring and so far it has been nothing but good news about the vaccines.
Lord Winston (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the House should be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, who is constantly being bombarded with our questions. However, I point out that within six hours of entering a cell this virus will have replicated, leading to millions of copies. Some copies will be imperfect, the so-called variants. Time is of the essence. The risk of dangerous new variants to which we have no defence is eventually likely to be inevitable. Will the Government now answer the question that has been repeatedly asked both in this House and in the other place since Christmas: as the red list of presumed points of embarkation is ludicrous and ineffectual, why do the Government not ensure that all those tens of thousands we have heard about entering the UK daily are effectively separated, screened, tracked, traced and isolated where necessary before they are lost within minutes somewhere in a British city?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his grim prognosis and I agree with his analysis. If there is one place in the world where a mutant variation is likely to happen, it will be in an area where you have high infection rates and a large amount of suppression of the virus by either a lockdown or a vaccine programme. If you look around the world, that country is most likely to be Britain. We must be on the balls of our feet to be prepared for unhelpful news on that front.
Can I reassure the noble Lord on the borders? The number of people travelling in and out of the UK has reduced dramatically and the traffic through our airports and seaports is down tremendously. The application of the red list programme is extremely effective and the use of quarantine hotels has been extremely rigorously enforced. The isolation, along with amber routes, has also had enormous resources and is much more effective than it once was. We are prepared to go further. We review the red list constantly and, should the threats mount up to being serious enough, we will extend the red list as far as necessary.
Baroness Sheehan (LD) [V]
My Lords, vaccines are key to getting us to a position where we can live with the virus, but we really must listen to scientists telling us that we must control the virus everywhere. While our support for the COVAX initiative is to be applauded, it cannot work effectively without reliable supplies of the vaccine. The Covid-19 Technology Access Pool is designed to do just that. Are we fully engaged in C-TAP?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, we are taking a leadership role in COVAX, CEPI, ACT, Gavi and all the international, multilateral initiatives to roll out vaccine around the world. We are looking at what to do with our own stock of vaccines, and the Foreign Secretary has made it very clear that distribution of the vaccines we have bought is very much on the agenda. The AstraZeneca vaccine is being used as probably the default vaccine of choice around the world, as it is low- cost and easily distributed. Through our G7 chairmanship, we entirely support the agenda of preventing further pandemic by ensuring that vaccines are fairly and widely distributed around the world.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con) [V]
I join others in congratulating my noble friend and his colleagues on the brilliant success of the vaccine programme. However, why is everyone in the United Kingdom, on receiving the vaccine, not being issued with a card to show that they have had it?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, they are issued with a certificate. It is a digital certificate that is put in their patient record. In the modern day, that is by far the most effective way to ensure that people know that they have had the vaccine. A physical card has the potential for fraud. We have looked that extremely carefully, but we think the digital approach is the right one. Most people will receive a small card with their second dose appointment on it, but if my noble friend did not get one, I am sorry about that.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, following on from that question, the need for vaccination passports to travel abroad, discussed earlier, now looks very likely, including, of course, to the EU, which will have its own standard. All the talk is of a phone app, but will the Government ensure that a paper version will be provided which will be acceptable abroad? A significant minority of older people still do not have mobile phones, and why should OAPs have to buy one in order to travel?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, in this matter, we will be led by international standards, and collaboration with our neighbours is essential when it comes to matters of international travel. If a paper certificate is required for international travel, we will put in place arrangements for that. A huge amount of the work that goes on for foreign travel nowadays happens before you ever get anywhere near the airport to depart. Passenger locator forms, pre-testing and vaccination certificates are all necessary in order to book a ticket, and that is where, really, the responsibility of the individual lies.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the NHS and the Minister for the rollout of the vaccine, but with continued concern about the mortality rates. Churches, clergy and chaplains have been very involved in pastoral care and in support of the dying and the bereaved, even when buildings have been closed. There is now big concern with Holy Week and Easter coming up. Can the Minister offer a roadmap for when singing by choirs and congregations will once again be allowed, with sufficient time to prepare?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am entirely sympathetic to the question posed by the right reverend Prelate. I cannot think of anything nicer than spending Easter at Salisbury Cathedral listening to the beautiful singing of the choir there. We will be led, however, by the public health practicalities on that. It has been one of the most heartbreaking aspects of this pandemic that those who seek sanctuary through worship have not been able to join the rest of their community, but the practicalities of the spread of the virus are unavoidable, so we will be led by public health advice in this matter. I do not have a date for his roadmap, I fear, but his considerations are very much understood in the department.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab) [V]
I thank the Minister for his continuing patience on this subject, and I am sure he did not mean to sidestep the two questions from my noble friend Lady Thornton. One was about the cliff edge for the social care sector, where the special funding is due to come to an end in March, and the apparent delay before we solve our care sector problem until 2022. The second was about there being no mention of NHS funding in the Budget, despite the fact that the roadmap recognises that annual vaccination programmes and continued testing and tracing are likely to be required. Does he have anything to say about those two areas of social care and NHS funding?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, we would not ordinarily expect a big announcement on NHS funding at a Budget such as this, and the truth is that we are not through the woods yet. It is impossible to predict what funds the NHS will need this year or next until we are through this pandemic, and while we are spending time today taking pleasure in celebrating the vaccine, the honest truth is that danger is still around the corner and we do not yet know that we are truly through this. When we are able to say that for sure, it will be possible to take a moment to decide on NHS funding. In the meantime, we remain committed to our manifesto pledges on hospital building and on recruitment, and on both those matters, we have made an enormous amount of progress. The Prime Minister has been crystal clear about his commitment to social care funding reform, and he stands by that commitment.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD) [V]
My Lords, given the undoubted success in the UK of the rollout of the vaccination programme, on which all involved are to be congratulated, our attention must turn, as my noble friend Lady Sheehan said, to consider the global operation because this disease is a global issue, not a United Kingdom one. The United Kingdom cannot live normally without the security of knowing that it is being tackled successfully globally. Will the Government use their chairmanship of the G7 to put in place and publish a global response action plan that goes further than what we have seen already and certainly further than simply donating spare vaccines?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Lord puts it extremely well. We have four key themes in the health track of the G7. The first is pandemic preparedness in the round; the second is clinical trial data—that is an essential building block for pandemic preparedness; the third is medical data transfer—one thing we have tripped over repeatedly in our international collaboration on pandemic reform is the difficulty of sharing data; and the fourth is AMR, which is the threat on the horizon. If we have learned one thing from this pandemic, it is not to underestimate the threat from anti-microbial resistance.
Baroness Pidding (Con) [V]
My Lords, with the potential need for a rolling programme of booster injections or vaccination against new variants, can my noble friend tell the House what infrastructure is being planned so that we can protect our entire population for as long as is necessary?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for looking forward. She is entirely right: the experience of this vaccination programme cannot stop when we have finished the initial rollout and we have to look to the future. As I said in my opening remarks, I am extremely hopeful that this can be an inflection point where we double-up on our commitment to rid the country of as much contagious disease as we possibly can. That will include booster shots, to which my noble friend alluded. It will also include a greater commitment to flu shots, and we very much hope that we can increase dramatically the take-up of flu shots at all ages, to stop not only illness itself but transmission.
Baroness Bull (CB)
Following on from the noble Baroness’s question and the importance of overall and ongoing vaccination coverage, can the Minister say how many people living in the UK are not registered with an NHS GP and therefore cannot be contacted for vaccination? We know that socially excluded groups, such as rough sleepers, Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities and vulnerable migrants, are less likely to be registered, and there will be people registered only with a private GP. What assessment have the Government made of the scale of this challenge—how many people are affected—and what efforts are under way to find them and offer them vaccination?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness makes her point extremely well. It is an area that we have looked at extremely carefully. The proportion of people who are not registered is remarkably small, but the phenomenon does exist. For this particular vaccination round, we have put in procedures so that those who turn up at a GP or vaccination centre who are not registered can be registered on the spot, and I thank colleagues at NHS D, who have put the necessary arrangements into the NIMS programme to make that possible. There are also others who do not know their NHS number—well, an enormous number of them now do know it. That is one of the blessings of this vaccination programme. We are also working extremely hard to reach out to the people the noble Baroness alludes to—the homeless, the Roma community and those who are recent arrivals in the UK—to make sure that the vaccination is offered to absolutely everyone in the UK, whatever their immigration status, whatever their living arrangements and whatever their medical history.
Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]
My Lords, last month the High Court concluded that the Secretary of State acted unlawfully by failing to comply with the transparency policy. When did the Prime Minister become aware that the Government were failing to meet their policy, and will the Minister now provide this House with minutes of each Cabinet meeting at which the government failure was discussed?
Lord Bethell (Con)
It was a regrettable administrative oversight; it was one that the Secretary of State has made it clear he would do again if it meant saving lives. I am not aware of it having reached the Cabinet.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, we should all be enormously grateful to those who have made the vaccination programme such a success. In our thanks, we should not forget Kate Bingham and her team. However, there are still inconsistencies. During the last lockdown, pre-vaccine, we could have services properly distanced in Lincoln Cathedral with a choir and a congregation. Post-vaccine, we cannot. Post-vaccine, we are still—I am back to my old hobbyhorse—allowing care home workers to attend to the most intimate needs of their patients having refused a vaccine. Can we have some consistency, please? I am grateful to my noble friend.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for his question and I echo his comments on Kate Bingham. However, my Lords, we are not post-vaccine; we are, at best, mid-vaccine. Vaccinating 20 million people is an enormous achievement but there is a hell of a long way to go. There is still an enormous amount of infection in this country; nearly half a million people, or thereabouts, have the disease. There are variants of concern being generated in this country, such as the Kent virus, and overseas, such as the Manaus virus. Until we are truly through this, we have to show restraint and make uncomfortable decisions, and we must ensure that the NHS is preserved and we save lives. That, I am afraid, remains our priority.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, British science is indeed to be celebrated, as is government support of it, in vaccine development, genome sequencing and disease-specific registries such as UK Biobank. Will the Government use that experience to establish a national Covid registry to bring together the four main groups of data referred to by the Minister in his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, to inform long-term planning to reveal links between new variants found on sequencing, different long-term complications, including long Covid, the risk factors behind it and other matters such as body-mass index, vaccine history and any associated other contagious diseases? Such a registry could act as a long-term public health research tool.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her insightful question about the obscure but vital question of data architecture. If there is going to be one powerful legacy of this awful disease, it will be the way in which data helped drive medical research, medical insight and the treatment of individuals. I am not sure if we need a new registry, a national Covid registry; what we need is for our existing data to be able to talk to itself. I can tell the Chamber that we are making enormous progress on that. I pay tribute to the unsung heroes, the CTOs who meet weekly at the NHS data architecture meeting, an obscure but vital forum where an enormous amount of good work is done by NHSX, NHSD, test and trace and others in primary and secondary care who are working incredibly hard, so that if one takes a test today, it goes into one’s patient record tomorrow and can be used the day after by a researcher looking at long Covid, dexamethasone, recovery or whatever. This is how modern healthcare should work. We have not done it well enough to date. We are making great progress on it tomorrow and we must not stop.
Baroness Andrews (Lab) [V]
My Lords, like everyone else, I could not agree more that the NHS rollout has been absolutely brilliant. I should also say that the Minister has been resilient, and we all appreciate that. However, I return to what is a more uncomfortable subject, I suspect, and follow up the question on airport testing. The Minister said that far fewer people are travelling and that the pursuit of quarantine conditions is more effective than it was. Given that fewer people are travelling, is it not possible to do what my noble friend Lord Winston suggested and pursue those people through test and trace and airport testing, as many other countries are doing successfully? How can the Minister say that quarantine testing of people in self-isolation is more effective? Can he give us more details on that?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, for her questions. Perhaps I may tackle the specific question of airport testing, which has been raised a couple of times. The honest truth is that the arrival of families in south Gloucestershire and Aberdeen who had done a pre-flight test and subsequently developed symptoms demonstrates, I am afraid, that pre-flight and airport testing is not as effective as one would hope. If it were, we would not have to impose a 10-day testing regime with tests on the second and eighth days. That is the only rigorous way in which one can do it. It is estimated that airport testing catches perhaps between 10% and 20% of infection, and that is why managed quarantine is so important. The infection rate among those who arrive in the UK is high enough for us to be seriously concerned and to impose the kind of isolation that we have done. Until that infection rate is reduced, I am afraid that we have to look forward to managed quarantine and isolation being a part of the travel experience for some time.
Lord Dobbs (Con) [V]
My Lords, I add my congratulations to those offered to all those involved in a remarkable national achievement. It has also been a personal triumph for my noble friend and all his colleagues. However, perhaps I may pursue the question that my noble friend Lord Cormack raised a moment ago. An alarming proportion of Covid infections have been caught by patients in hospital and those inside care homes. Can the Minister elaborate on government plans to require those who work in the NHS and care homes to accept vaccination if they are to continue to work among such vulnerable people? Why are so many of them so reluctant? Does he agree that the trade unions have some nerve in describing any suggestion of that sort as bullying?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I completely acknowledge the concerns of my noble friends Lord Dobbs and Lord Cormack about nosocomial infection. Undoubtedly, infections caught onsite in Britain last year and this year, and in every epidemic, are not only among the saddest forms of contagion but among the most dangerous. I want to reassure both my noble friends that we are absolutely focused on this point. It is, though, too early to make a call on professional mandatory vaccination. We have got through only the first 20 million people in the highest-risk and, therefore, the oldest age groups, and we have not moved through all the other age groups. The Cabinet Office is looking at this matter and has a review process in place. When that process has coughed up its findings, we will be in a position to debate the matter, and I look forward to that in due course.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the success of the NHS vaccination programme is a tribute to the efficiency and success of the public sector, in contrast to some of the private organisations involved in other aspects of dealing with the pandemic? I want to put a specific question to the Minister. He used the phrase, “Until we are through this pandemic”. Would it not be more sensible to say that we may never be fully through this pandemic, so our planning must be based on the fact that we will have to continue with the vaccination programme as new mutations develop for many years to come? Would it not be better to look that far ahead?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I disagree completely with the noble Lord’s first point. The vaccine would not have happened without AstraZeneca and the other private companies that have produced, manufactured and delivered it, so I do not know where the public sector would have got its vaccines from. I completely reject that point.
I agree with his second point. I should not have said, “When we are through this pandemic” because we are going to live with its consequences for many years to come, and if it is not this pandemic, there may be others in the future. We have all, I think, taken on board the fact that in the modern world, there is a new, 21st century cost for the kind of global lifestyle that we have got used to, and that is the international spread of viruses. We can, I think, win the battle, but we will have to adapt. Learning how to do that is the challenge of this year.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
I too would like to offer my congratulations to the Government on the speed and efficiency of the vaccine rollout. Due credit must be given to all our health professionals for their dedication in risking their own health in care homes and when visiting private houses. The sight of an end to the pandemic should not lead to smugness. We were caught ill-prepared when it began and, with environmental and climate change, along with the increasing movement of people, there will always be new threats. Does the Minister agree, as he has already hinted, that we should plan to use this experience to combat these new threats more effectively?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for teeing up what I hope can be an insight about the future. We will have to work much more closely with our international allies and colleagues on this matter. We must invest in vaccines, therapeutics and antivirals on a prophylactic basis to be ready for when the worst viruses, including coronaviruses, emerge. We will have to bring international flying standards up to a much higher level so that the spread of viruses when pandemics occur is kept under control. We will also have to put the necessary surgical capacity into our healthcare systems to ensure that they are much more resilient than they were in the past. These are just three examples of the kind of changes that are on the horizon. I am hungry to get on with them and I am sure we will have a fantastic impact in our battle against disease.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, did the Minister have time to watch the David Harewood documentary shown at prime time on BBC1 on Tuesday about the massive health inequalities in the UK, which of course the Marmot report and reviews have been documenting for a decade? Why have so many Covid deaths been among the poor and the BAME communities?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am not an epidemiologist who can totally nail that question, but I recognise and acknowledge completely the assumption. This disease has hit the least advantaged the hardest, but trying to understand the correlation and causation of that is extremely difficult. The evidence so far suggests that some of these causes are to do with the environment: the houses that people live in, the circumstances of their employment and their behaviour within that employment. But some of this is about comorbidities and healthy lifestyles, as well as weight, which I mentioned earlier. These are all matters of grave community concern. We have to take an interest in the public health of the whole nation and we are only as strong as the weakest part. I agree with the noble Lord’s implication: this is a wake-up call for the whole country and we have to address the health of absolutely everyone.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for questions on the Statement has now elapsed.
Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Welsh Forms) Order 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, I shall also speak to the Mayoral and Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Coronavirus, Nomination of Candidates) (Amendment) Order in the same speech.
Perhaps I may say at the outset how much I look forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Hannan, who will address us shortly. The instruments brought forward today make sensible provision to support the effective administration of elections. The mayoral and police and crime commissioner elections order amends the Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England and Wales) Regulations 2007, the Police and Crime Commissioner Elections Order 2012 and the Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) Order 2017. The purpose of the order, following representations made by my noble friend Lord Hayward and others, is to reduce the number of signatures required on a nomination paper for a candidate in the police and crime commissioner, combined authority and single authority mayoral elections. It is intended to reduce the need for person-to-person contact ahead of the May elections, given the specific context of the current pandemic. Similar provisions relating to local councillor and London mayoral elections have been made in a separate order.
In making these changes, we have taken the approach that the candidates should obtain subscribers on the basis of two per local authority area, whether for a poll within a single local authority or for electoral areas that contain a number of local authorities. Single local authority mayoral candidates must obtain signatures from two electors instead of 30; candidates for police and crime commissioner elections must obtain signatures from a number of electors which is twice the number of local authority areas within that police area. This is instead of the current requirement of 100 electors. For example, under the changes, for the Devon and Cornwall police area, which has 12 local authority areas, a candidate will need to obtain 24 signatures. Combined authority mayoral or so-called metro mayoral candidates must obtain signatures from a total number of electors that is twice the number of local authority areas within the boundary of the area. For example, the Liverpool City Region has six authorities, so the total number of signatures needed is 12. These signatures must be obtained from two electors registered to vote in each local authority area within the mayoral area. Currently, 100 electors in total are required at a combined authority mayoral election.
In making these changes, the Government have responded, after consultation, to the concerns of the electoral sector, candidates and political parties that the need to collect a high number of signatures for nominations for a candidate in some types of poll would encourage an unhelpful and unnecessary amount of interaction, as well as complexity for candidates. While it is essential that candidates in a poll can demonstrate a clear amount of local support, we must balance the importance of democracy with the need to protect people in these unique circumstances.
As I have explained, we are not removing the signature requirements completely. It is important that there should remain a democratic check and balance for candidates to demonstrate a degree of local support from electors in their area. These provisions will remain in force until 28 February 2022 to support candidates in any by-elections that may occur in the coming months as we emerge from the pandemic. The elections in May 2022 will automatically revert to the standard rules.
I am grateful to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for drawing this to the attention of the House. The committee considered that there are some points where the drafting of the instrument and its Explanatory Note could have been clearer in certain respects. We welcome the views of the committee and are particularly interested to note its thoughts on how best to assist readers in understanding which provisions in an instrument will apply to different parts of the UK. We consider that the instrument takes a proportionate approach to a temporary rule change which has been introduced to reduce the number of face-to-face contacts required in the pandemic. I am gratified to see that the committee has agreed with the response of the Cabinet Office to its request for a memorandum has provided additional clarity.
We consider that it is clear from the context of the order itself when and to which elections it applies. However, in order to further aid clarity and certainty, we have published a note on GOV.UK on the order and its effect, particularly on the numbers of signatures required, and to assist candidates, their supporters and those administering elections. This includes tables that set out the number of subscribers needed for candidates standing at combined authority and London mayoral elections in England, and elections of police and crime commissioners in England and Wales. As I have explained, these are polls where the election is for an area covering a number of local authority areas and the tables set out the total number of subscribers that candidates will need in these areas, and whether a specific number is required from each constituent authority or not.
I now turn to the Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Welsh Forms) Order 2021, which I hope will be welcomed by your Lordships. It introduces a set of prescribed forms and forms of words translated into Welsh in respect of the range of other forms already in use, in English, at PCC elections. These are in addition to the Welsh versions of the ballot paper and nomination form for candidates that are already provided.
The form and forms of words prescribed by this instrument are for use in any police and crime commissioner election that takes place in Wales. The Welsh forms in the instrument cover various stages in the electoral process and include poll cards issued to electors, the postal voting statement completed by postal voters, the declaration to be made by the companion of a voter with disabilities, guidance for voters and forms completed by candidates and their agents.
Some forms are in Welsh only and others are bilingual, in Welsh and English. The forms that are prescribed in Welsh and English—for example, poll cards and postal voting statements—are to be used in the bilingual form in place of the English versions. Forms that are prescribed in Welsh only—for example, the candidate’s consent to nomination form and the candidate’s declaration as to election expenses—are to be made available in Welsh where the person completing the form, such as the candidate, prefers to communicate in Welsh rather than English. The order also provides a Welsh version of the forms of words setting out guidance for voters that appears in polling station voting compartments. The effect of the order is that the form of words appropriate to the number of candidates will be displayed.
We have consulted the Electoral Commission on the orders, and it is supportive of both. We have also had support for the changes to the nominations process from the Association of Electoral Administrators and in discussions with political party representatives via the Parliamentary Parties Panel. We also shared a draft of the Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Welsh Forms) Order 2021 with the Welsh Language Advisory Group, the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and officials in the Welsh Government. There is broad support among these stakeholders for the proposed changes set out in these two instruments.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The question is that this Motion be agreed to. I should have made it clear at the beginning that the time limit for this debate is one and a half hours. The first debate is on the Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Welsh Forms) Order 2021, and one other Motion later.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord True, for his clear explanation. I too look forward to the maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Hannan—although we have disagreed fundamentally on Europe and will doubtless continue to do so.
The draft Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Welsh Forms) Order 2021 is not controversial, and I support it. The Government have made it clear that consultees have included the Electoral Commission, the Association of Electoral Administrators, political parties, the Welsh Language Advisory Group, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and officials in the Welsh Government. But has the noble Lord or any of his ministerial colleagues talked directly to Welsh Government Ministers? I ask because that has often not happened on other issues. What did the Welsh Language Advisory Group say specifically? Were any modifications or large changes made as a result of its feedback?
I realise that the order sets out Welsh language versions of certain forms, and certain forms of words, to be used at police and crime commissioner elections in Wales, not least because only Welsh versions of the ballot paper and the nomination form for candidates at PCC elections in Wales have so far been covered in legislation, and other forms have not. The changes in this order follow pressure from electoral officials in Wales and Welsh language groups to bring consistency with other elections held in Wales over such matters as poll cards, postal voting and arrangements for voters with disabilities, and to ensure that all forms and guidance notes are bilingual, in Welsh and English, which is very welcome. The practice at previous police and crime commissioner elections was for the forms and arrangements to be left to local Welsh returning officers, using powers in Article 85 of the 2012 order, supported by guidance from the Electoral Commission.
Turnout in these PCC elections has been very poor indeed. In 2012, turnout averaged just 15.1% across all 40 police areas in England and Wales, measured as valid first preference votes as a proportion of the electorate. There was a welcome rise in 2016 to 26.6%, but that is still a miserably low figure. Presumably, the Government have lumped them together with key English and Welsh elections in May, for example to the Senedd—the Welsh Parliament—and for the London Mayor, in order to increase turnout.
Although relations between the Welsh and UK Governments on the running of elections are generally constructive, the fact that the PCC elections are happening on the same day as the Senedd election is problematic. The Welsh Government would have preferred to consider all-postal voting or to have early voting centres for the Senedd elections, but these were effectively ruled out because the Cabinet Office would not agree to them for the PCC elections. Can the Minister please say why? Was it because, like Donald Trump, who also opposed such measures for early postal voting to encourage turnout during the pandemic, they actually do not want to make it easy for people to vote? Is that the reason? I hope not, because it was clearly Trump’s reason.
Welsh Ministers are also pretty staggered that the UK Government have decided to permit not just leafleting but canvassing in England at a time when the advice is still to stay at home. Is it not extraordinary that we are saying to people, “You can’t see your loved ones but if someone pops up on your doorstep from the Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat parties, or Plaid Cymru, please have a chinwag with them”?
To be fair, the Cabinet Office Minister, Chloe Smith, has made it clear that this change to the guidance is for England only and does not apply to PCC elections in Wales in respect of canvassing and so forth, since campaigning rules are part of the devolved responsibility for public health. But, surely, it remains perverse that in England you cannot see your loved ones but you can see a political party representative on your doorstep. Perhaps the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord True, could enlighten us all about that in his reply. In the meantime, I am happy to support this order.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hain, has put before me a mirage of Trump-like volunteers wheeling wheelbarrows of votes for police and crime commissioner elections; I wait for the day.
I very much welcome this instrument. It has to be emphasised that the use of Welsh in government forms strengthens confidence in the general use of the language. The Welsh Language Advisory Group is doing a very good job and the use of Welsh is widening. I am currently on an excellent course in improving my language skills with students not just from the locality but from Swansea to Devizes, Manchester and Edinburgh; that is one of the joys of Zooming.
These forms are written in formal Welsh, possibly with a touch of tafodiaith y gogledd about them—I sincerely hope that they can be understood all right further down there. Of course, Welsh is not spoken everywhere in Wales and the bilingual forms are valuable. In my part of Wales, the response to the intervention of the police is more likely to be in robust Anglo-Saxon. My father recalled patrolling Town Hill in Wrexham as a young policeman, with a new recruit from a chapel-going, Welsh-speaking area further to the west. A local, tumbling out of the Vaults at closing time, started abusing them, Anglo-Saxon-wise. The new policeman took off his uniform jacket and handed it to my father, saying, in Welsh: “Here, Hywel, hang on to this. I’ve got my rights.” A fight broke out, with a crowd gathering around urging the local on while my father stood holding his mate’s coat. Those were the days of proper policing, before they invented those new-fangled police commissioners. History does not record what the magistrates said.
I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, on this topic. We shall certainly be looking forward to the results of the next police commissioner elections in north Wales, wheelbarrows of votes of not, with a better-informed electorate.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a privilege to rise for the first time in this place among you. It can be somewhat unsettling arriving in the Palace of Westminster at the height of the lockdown and its associated restrictions. There are times, wandering down the empty corridors and seeing the black and yellow tape barring various entrances, when it feels almost post-apocalyptic, almost “28 Days Later”. But if the physical environment is necessarily sterile, the same cannot be said of the people. I have been overwhelmed by the kindness and generosity of noble Lords on all Benches, who have always taken time to help a new Member.
The same is true of the permanent staff. It is not uncommon on these occasions to thank Black Rod and her excellent team, and rightly so. They have conducted themselves through these difficult times with exemplary briskness, efficiency and good cheer. Similarly, the doorkeepers are often rightly thanked on these occasions. Already, I have had more than once had occasion to be grateful to them for their good humour and their good sense. Perhaps your Lordships might indulge me if I thank a third group, less-often thanked: the canteen staff. There have been occasions when I have found the sheer weight of the lockdown and the emptiness almost oppressive. A sure cure to that mood is to be steered towards the rock cakes by the smiling canteen staff.
Allow me also to thank two noble friends who introduced me and whom I am truly proud to call friends—my noble friends Lord Leigh of Hurley and Lord Borwick, two immensely charming men whose characters are superficially different but who both have that sincere charm that rests on largeness of character, generosity of spirit and an unfeigned interest in other people.
I come here after 21 years in the European Parliament. I am one of many such on all Benches; I lost count at about a dozen. It is fair to say that I was a little bit less popular in that chamber than some of my noble friends and some of the noble Lords opposite who served in Brussels and Strasbourg. I had a dear friend, a French MEP, a terrific federalist and a great believer in a united states of Europe, who used to tease me by quoting the Book of Genesis. He would say: “You’re like Ishmael, you’re a wild man, every man’s hand against you and your hand against every man’s.” I am not sure that this was entirely true. Certainly I was in a minority in the European Parliament, but now, as that verse continues, dwelling among my brethren, like Ishmael, I look back and see that I have many friends, including great believers in a united states of Europe, with whom I have spent the past year Zooming disconsolately as we compare conditions in our various countries.
Throughout my time in Brussels, I saw my animating principle as being the diffusion, the decentralisation and the democratisation of power, which brings me to the debate before your Lordships today. I was given some advice before speaking. Somebody said that for your maiden speech you should pick an uncontroversial topic. He looked at me significantly, “You particularly, Hannan, should pick something uncontroversial.” I toyed with the idea of the Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill, which we are due to debate next week. However, I felt that, in the current mood, that was too much of a hot-button issue and I did not want tempers to run high, so I have confined myself to the debate on today’s statutory instrument, which, as my noble friend the Minister ably set out, is about varying the number of signatures needed for police and crime commissioner candidates and about the use of the ancient, exquisite and euphonic Welsh language, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, reminds us, is part of the glory of all of us in these islands.
Pericles, treated so often as a guru by the Prime Minister, said that great issues can arise from small questions. The issue of maintaining and strengthening local democratic control of police strikes me as a very great issue indeed. It is perfectly true, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, pointed out, that turnout for police and crime commissioner elections has been disappointing. I feel the loss perhaps more than some in this Chamber, having been a very early advocate of the idea. In 2005, I wrote a book calling for what I then wanted to call sheriffs. I thought it great to revive the shrievalty as an institution. Eventually, in a very watered-down form, that idea took shape as policy.
I always quarrelled with the name “police and crime commissioner”. First, it is very boring. Secondly, it is technically inaccurate, making it sound as if you are the person in charge of the crime as well as in charge of the police. Thirdly, the commissioner is the opposite of an elected person, being someone who is given a commission. I took this question up with the then Police Minister, now my noble friend Lord Herbert. He said: “The trouble is, we focus-group tested it, and nobody liked ‘sheriff’. It sounded too American, too John Wayne—posses and stars and so on.” If that is true, what a sad comment it is on the ahistoricism of our country. Where on earth do people think that their cousins got the idea, the name and the institution from, if not from here?
I hope that with time we can strengthen the office, giving it not only more control over the police, but, ideally, the right to set local sentencing guidelines, while not interfering in particular cases. The answer to low turnout is to give more power and more meaning to the act of casting a vote in that election. As a general principle, we should strengthen and not weaken local democracy and local accountability. Perhaps this country’s proudest boast, the greatest gift that we have given to the happiness of mankind, is the idea that laws should not be passed, nor taxes raised, except by people who are answerable and that the people who pass and enforce the laws are in some way accountable to the people who are expected to obey them. That principle applies at local as well as national level. How to strengthen the police and crime commissioners—how to strengthen the shrievalty—is beyond the matter of this debate and well above my pay grade, but I hope that noble Lords will see an advantage nationally to us in trying to move towards greater local democracy and towards more purpose, meaning and honour in the act of casting a vote locally.
In many ways, your Lordships are the nation’s institutional memory. This Chamber is a repository for the accumulated constitutional wisdom of centuries. That imposes a commensurate obligation on us to keep intact and to improve where possible the freedoms that we were privileged to inherit and to pass them on securely to our children.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, we have just had a taste of eloquent things to come. It gives me great pleasure to welcome my noble friend Lord Hannan and to be the first to congratulate him on his maiden speech.
He is well known to your Lordships as one of the intellectual architects of Euroscepticism. He won the respect of his opponents but, to the dismay of many, he does not fit their cherished caricature of Eurosceptics as insular, Europhobic ignoramuses. Far from being insular, he was not even born on this island. Like Paddington Bear, he hails from darkest Peru, though I suspect that the London terminus via which young Daniel was dispatched to his schooling was not Paddington but Waterloo. He is not just the Waterloo bear of British politics, but a member of that little-recognised species—the Europhile Eurosceptic. He speaks Spanish as well as French, is steeped in European culture, and is a notable Shakespearean scholar.
He has reminded me that I first met him in the early 1990s at the Oxford Union, during the annual no confidence debate. I followed his rapid rise to fame in this country and then in Europe, where, as an MEP, he quixotically devoted 21 years of his life to extricating this country from the EU and doing himself out of a job. His abiding passion is freedom—the freedoms we invented in this country. I advise all noble Members to read How We Invented Freedom & Why It Matters. It is about the freedom to govern ourselves and make our own laws—now largely achieved—and the freedom of trade as an engine of prosperity. I am sure he will make notable contributions on these issues in your Lordships’ House.
I turn to the statutory instrument. The whole purpose of elected commissioners was to strengthen links between our citizen police force and the public. Requiring candidates for this office to demonstrate a measure of public support by obtaining a spread of nominations is one aspect of that. It is understandable that, during the pandemic, this requirement has been curtailed. Once the pandemic is over, it is important that it be reinstated.
It is fair to say that the institution of elected commissioners has been slow to gather active public participation, though it is growing, but it is salutary to remember how remote and unaccountable police authorities—and watch committees before them—were to the public prior to these commissioners. The police authority typically consisted of nine councillors. They had been elected, but not for the specific task of representing the public in supervising the police force. There were also eight lay independent members, chosen by the authority itself from a list vetted by the Home Office. In my experience, the result was a committee which was almost entirely captured by the police force that it was intended to supervise, so the force set its own priorities rather than having the public’s priorities indicated to it. I recall the contemptuous way in which police authorities—in an echo of the police themselves—rejected public calls for more bobbies on the beat. They were unaware of the evidence from other Anglo-Saxon countries—or, when they were made aware, they rejected it—that bobbies on the beat, particularly if they patrol as individuals rather than in pairs and therefore have to talk to members of the public rather than to their colleagues, can be extremely effective both in garnering information and in deterring crime. As a result of the contempt with which that idea was held in professional areas and upheld by police authorities, police on the beat became as rare as cats’ teeth.
This was always brought home to be when reading PG Wodehouse—which I do several times a year. In almost every novel, the hero will go out into the street and hail the nearest bobby. Now he would have to wait for months or weeks to do so in this country. I hope that the result of police commissioners will be to bring to police forces an awareness that the public value their services so much that they would like to see more of them.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, on his maiden speech. I am sorry not to have been in the Chamber to enjoy it. I particularly welcome his warm words towards the Welsh language.
My contribution will be short, not least because some of the points have already been covered by the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Thomas of Gresford. As Plaid Cymru currently has two of Wales’s four police commissioners, I have a great interest in these matters.
I have two questions. The first is about the formulation of the Welsh language version. Can the Minister confirm that the wording which appears in the order has been run past precisely the same team as advised the Welsh Parliament on linguistic matters? From his introductory comments, I assume that this is the case, but I should be grateful for confirmation. I ask with a view to ensuring consistency in the usage of language—in particular, the treatment of gender. As colleagues may know—and some noble Lords participating today certainly do know—the Welsh language has gender-related nouns. Mutation is affected by the gender. In these days when we try to avoid unnecessary gender implications in texts which may relate to both males and females, we need to be particularly careful about this in the Welsh language formulation. My nose twitched in a couple of places in the text, but I shall be happy if those more academically knowledgeable than me on linguistic matters have given their blessing to the wording before us today.
Secondly, the Minister will be aware that elections to the Welsh Parliament will probably take place on the same day as the election of the police commissioners. Those parliamentary elections—and their regulations—are devolved to the Welsh Government and Parliament. The provisions made by the order to help certain groups cast their vote for police commissioners by means other than attending the voting booth may be different to the provisions made by the Welsh Parliament for its electoral purposes. With the two elections taking place on the same day, this could—at the very least—be confusing. How much co-ordination has there been between Westminster and Cardiff Bay to ensure that the two approaches are at least consistent, mutually compatible and not contradictory? I should appreciate the Minister’s response to both these points.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the orders. Having said that, we must never forget the years it took us all to get the Government to bring in satisfactory parity for the Welsh language. As a very young MP, I was entrusted by the Welsh parliamentary group to draw up a document—a review—so that we could persuade HMG of the need for parity. This was adopted word for word by Sir David Hughes Parry in his famous report.
I also want to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, on his excellent, wide-ranging maiden speech. He was obviously making it for the second time, having already made it in the European Parliament. Like many of us, I had to do this in both Houses. I am sure it will come as a big relief to him that it is over, and I am sure we all look forward to his future contributions.
I shall detain the House for only a few moments. I want to ask one question about the publicity for polling arrangements. Having successfully fought 11 elections in Wales, I hope the House will agree that I have a little knowledge of polling arrangements and polling booths. I will not embarrass myself, or the House, by reciting my majorities, save to say that I am grateful to my constituents for their support over the years.
My practice, invariably, was to go around all the polling booths. My wife and I would start in the morning, visit two stations before breakfast, then proceed up the valley, visiting each one in turn, and then go back down to the seaside for the evening. It was expected of me, and I enjoyed it. You went there to thank the polling officers and your own telling officers. If I had not gone, it would have been a huge mistake, and I am glad that, over 41 years, I took that step. I must say in passing that I hardly ever saw any of my opponents, who must have had better things to do, in their minds. However, that was my duty and that is how I carried it out. In 41 years, I never came across any trouble in a polling station. We should endeavour to ensure that there are no mistakes and no disturbances this time.
The point I want to make is that since there is a change in eligibility for Senedd elections—that is the Senedd’s province—allowing those aged 16 and over to vote but, on the other hand, there is no change in eligibility for the police and crime commissioners’ elections on the same day—it remains at the normal voting age—I am concerned that there is no disturbance. What steps are the Government taking to publicise the difference in advance of the elections to avoid confusion and embarrassment? I ask this against the background of never having experienced a disturbance in a polling station; I just want to avoid young men and women experiencing embarrassment when they turn up and are told that they are entitled to vote in one election but not the other.
It is confusing. I realise how it has come about: one decision is down to the Welsh Government and the other is down to the Westminster Parliament. I hope that the Government will publicise this issue sufficiently to ensure that there is complete clarification on young people’s rights well in advance so that they know they have only one vote. That will avoid any difficulty or embarrassment, particularly for polling officers.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I follow other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Hannan on an excellent maiden speech. I wish him well for all his future speeches, which will, I am sure, be as eloquent as his first.
In relation to the two orders before us, I am reminded that the first time I ever cast a vote was in Wales and bilingually: it was in favour of ending the ban on Sunday opening. I still recall the wording on the ballot paper in both English and Welsh but, given the facility of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and others in the language, I will not attempt to produce what I believe was the Welsh phraseology.
As my noble friend Lord True said, this change arises from my efforts—I thank my noble friend for his comments about them—and those of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. It is significant that a proposal that enhances democracy in these difficult circumstances came from this House, not the other place. In my mind, there is no question that it would not have been sensible to require people to pursue a series of nominations by knocking on doors all over the place to get the relevant signatures. I also pay tribute to the officials and Sheridan Westlake at No. 10 for trying to frame the change to the legislation so that we get the appropriate procedures.
I note, as my noble friend Lord True pointed out, that this order expires in February 2022. There are those who would wish to see it end at that point; I would favour the continuation of the process beyond that date because what was originally intended with the requirement of 10 signatures has now disappeared in the mists of time.
I want to spend a moment congratulating the Government. The guidance issued by them is extremely well phrased and well guided. The clarification on how many signatures are necessary, in which local authorities and under what circumstances is very clear indeed; I hope that other government documents follow the same process. My one slight observation in relation to government documents is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, identified, the Government have issued The Government’s Approach to Elections and Referendums during COVID-19. There is no reference in it to the collection of nomination signatories; I wish that there had been.
Overall, I welcome the change and this statutory instrument. It has come about as a result of efforts from this House. I hope that, as a result of this and other changes in practice taking place between now and 6 May, the maximum number of people will feel able to participate in the elections, whether by post or in person.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the Explanatory Memorandum for the 2012 order was prepared by the Home Office. It states that that SI
“prescribes bilingual (English and Welsh) versions of ballot papers to be used in Wales at Police and Crime Commissioner elections on 15 November 2012.”
It also states that the 2011 Act
“provides for the establishment of a directly elected Police and Crime Commissioner for every police area in England and Wales outside London. This Order is being made in exercise of the powers contained in the 2011 Act and the Welsh Language Act 1993 … This instrument applies to England and Wales … The Home Secretary has made the following statement regarding Human Rights: In my view the provisions of the Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Welsh Forms) Order 2012 are compatible with the Convention rights … In June 2010, the Government announced its intention to replace police authorities with directly elected Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) in England and Wales by 2012 … English forms have already been prescribed in the Police and Crime Commissioner Elections Order 2012 … under the same power in the 2011 Act but, as is usual practice, bilingual forms are being established separately by this Order … This Order does not apply to businesses, charities or voluntary bodies … The legislation does not apply to small business.”
I fully support the order.
Lord Shipley (LD) [V]
My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, on his maiden speech. We very much look forward to his future contributions to the work of this House. I want to pick out one thing from his speech. He said that we need to give more meaning to the importance of casting a vote; I agree entirely with him on that.
I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I have nothing to add to the points made by earlier speakers this afternoon on the Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Welsh Forms) Order. However, I do wish to address the order being debated alongside it—the Mayoral and Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Coronavirus, Nomination of Candidates) (Amendment) Order—which is clearly sensible given the coronavirus pandemic and given similar decisions already made for other elections in May.
I want to put this order in context. When we discussed the West Yorkshire Combined Authority order in January, I referred to two matters, both of which remain highly relevant. One was the importance of scrutiny and the need to review how the new mayoral combined authorities have worked—that is, an assessment of how each is performing and what we can learn from their achievements or failures. When mayoral combined authorities were first introduced, their bespoke nature was understandable because it meant that different areas could take on powers and responsibilities that suited their local circumstances. From the perspective of the Government, it meant that further approaches to spreading power in England could be tested. That approach has proved valuable, but we need to review how more power and responsibility might be devolved from Whitehall and Westminster, and not just to those existing combined authorities. That could take place in the context of the promise by the Government of a White Paper on English devolution, which was due last year.
The Minister may also recall that, at the last election, the Conservative Party manifesto contained a commitment to a constitution, democracy and rights commission. I understand the reasons why these have not happened yet, given the pandemic, but perhaps the Minister might tell us what the Government’s plans are now.
The elections for police and crime commissioners, to which this order also applies, are the third set of elections since the introduction of the role and, as the Minister knows, there has been a consultation on police and crime commissioner powers recently. No doubt a number of proposals will arise from that in due course, but assessing the role of police and crime commissioners should not be done in isolation.
There are several issues of principle to consider. Should elected mayors have responsibility for policing or is that model too centralised? How should elected mayors and police and crime commissioners be held to account? London has an elected Assembly, but other parts of England do not. Is the police and crime commissioner model sufficiently resilient, and do police and crime panels succeed in holding police and crime commissioners to account? Do funding streams, divided between local government, mayors and police and crime commissioners, work as smoothly as they should? To what extent should governance of fire and rescue lie with police and crime commissioners?
There are many similar questions. In the past decade, we have seen a patchwork of new structures created. We have learned a lot from the many common approaches and the piloting of different approaches, but the time has come to try to review what has been achieved and what more should be done. This takes me back to the government plans for devolution in England and a constitutional commission. There would now be a benefit from the Government moving ahead with their White Paper on English devolution and saying more about their proposed commission.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant interest on the register as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. As other noble Lords have, I warmly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, on his excellent maiden speech. I wish him well in his time in this House. We will probably not agree on a number of issues, but I look forward to getting to know him and taking part in debates with him on important issues, as we both want to see our United Kingdom prosper in the years ahead. Even if you do not agree with other noble Lords, you can and should have respect for colleagues and the positions they are taking and advancing, and seek to understand those positions. In my nearly 11 years in this House, I have enjoyed the ability to work across the House and parties, and with Cross-Bench and non-aligned Members, to come up with sensible solutions to the problems that the United Kingdom faces, which we need to address.
I was delighted to learn that the noble Lord is a Shakespearean scholar. I have a love of Shakespeare. When I was elected at Southwark Council, my first vote as a councillor was to get Shakespeare’s Globe started and built in Bankside in Southwark, the borough in which I grew up and from which I take my title.
I am happy to give my full support to the two orders before us. First on the Welsh forms order, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, made valid points about the use of the Welsh language and ensuring that it develops and deepens in the community. The order adds to that aim, so I support it. We must always support all languages spoken in our islands. It is right, as the Explanatory Memorandum tells us, that the official forms for the police and crime commissioners are also provided in Welsh.
My noble friend Lord Hain made some valid points about the huge number of elections taking place on the same day across the United Kingdom. Like him, I would have preferred to see more consideration given to the use of all postal votes in some elections, as the Welsh Government suggested, but this has not been able to move forward and we are instead having elections as we are now, but it is important that we ensure that as many people as possible participate. The order seeks to ensure consistency with other elections held in Wales, which has its own discrete elections.
The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, highlighted that the turnout at PCC elections is still too low and I very much agree. The noble Lord, Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, made the point that the name may not be right. I too am not convinced that “police and crime commissioner” is correct. We had many debates on that in this House, but I am also not sure that “sheriff” is right either. Sheriffs have judicial office in Scotland and there are still ceremonial sheriffs appointed throughout England and Wales, the most famous being the sheriff of Nottingham, an official appointed by Nottingham City Council. The noble Lord, Lord True, knows all about that; it is an important civic office there.
The second order before us sensibly reduces the number of subscribing electors who are required to sign a candidate’s nomination paper. Having acted as an election agent for the last 40 years, I am in favour of having as few names on the forms as practically possible. As the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, was saying, the proposal for signatures from 10 people is ideal. I support the order and hope, as he does, that we get to a more sensible number of electors rather than these large numbers.
It is important to recognise that the nomination process for these elections is safe, because it could put people at risk of exposure to and transmission of Covid-19, which we need to manage. Clearly the nomination process is part of that, so I fully endorse those points.
I also endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, about how important it is for people to go out and cast their votes. Because we had no elections last year, we will have enormous numbers of elections of very important bodies and parliaments. We want to ensure that people get out there, cast their votes and give us their verdicts on our parties and how things have been run, and put people in charge of the different institutions for the years ahead. I support the call for people to go out and vote in the elections.
I also very much endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about combined and mayoral authorities, because there is some confusion there: some mayoral candidates have police powers and others do not. The Government should look at that and be clear. I remember a comment once from the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, who is not in his place. He made the point that, living in Cambridgeshire, there were elections on everything—the parish council, the city council, the county council, the police and crime commissioner, the combined authority, and there is a new mayoral appointment there now. It was just a plethora of elections. We need to ensure that people understand who is in a position of power and how they relate to them. The Government should look at that carefully, but it is a matter for another day. I am happy to support both these orders and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken for the general welcome given to both these orders. I very much agree with the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, about the way in which things are best done in this House and our ability to reach across the aisle. He has always exemplified that and I will always try to live up to that standard.
It would be hard, however, to live up to the standard of speaking of my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, who we all welcomed to this House. I congratulate him on his impressive and thoughtful maiden speech. He touched on things that are important to all of us—at least, some are important to all of us, and some to some of us. As was said by another speaker, his affirmation of the importance of casting a vote—of getting people to use democracy, particularly local democracy—speaks volumes to someone who has spent a lot of their time working in local government; I think I speak for the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, on this as well. Without going into specifics, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who also spoke eloquently about the importance of local democracy and devolution. I listened with interest to his remarks.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannan, spoke of a belief in freedom. As a child of the 1960s, I believe that almost every question comes back to freedom. I used to say that to my children when they were five years old and wanted to go out and play; they did not always see the point. It was good to hear him here today. Sometimes, in the pre-Brexit days, when some of us on these Benches were in a minority, we occasionally listened out for and watched his speeches in another place, which were an encouragement in difficult times. I wish him well in this House. He has instantly gained the respect of noble Lords on all sides.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed. I was asked a number of questions. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, ingeniously got Donald Trump into the question of police commissioner elections. I do not think that in any of this the Government were looking any further than the interests of democracy in this country and the Welsh language. The noble Lord asked whether Welsh Ministers were consulted and what the feedback from Welsh language advisers was. The answer is that the Welsh Language Advisory Group is content with the proposed changes. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, also raised this point. No major changes were made as a result of the consultation with stakeholders, who overall were content with the changes that we made.
I confirm that Cabinet Office officials sought the views of officials in the Welsh Government on the Welsh forms order. It is appropriate that there is consultation and effective activity on technical matters between the different Administrations in this country at official level. For that kind of contact to take place in no way denigrates the importance of intra-Administration contact.
The noble Lord, Lord Hain, also claimed that the Welsh Government were staggered, as he put it, that the UK Government were obstructing voting approaches. The conduct of elections in Wales is devolved. So far as the UK position is concerned, the Government in this time of Covid seek to ensure that people will have the opportunity to vote in the way that they wish to: by postal vote, by appointing a proxy or at a polling station. The UK Government do not think that changes to these mechanisms are needed. It would not have been possible to move to an all-postal vote without changing the voting process to remove the use of personal identifiers for security, which would open up the risk of fraud, or otherwise require them for every elector, which would run the risk that people would not provide them and so not be able to use a postal vote.
There will be three ways to vote in the UK: in person at a polling station, by postal vote or by proxy and these will all be available in 2021. We recognise that the pandemic may change people’s needs and preferences as to how they cast their vote. Guidance is available to enable voters to make their choice. The UK Government have always been clear that it would not be appropriate to impose an all-postal vote for the elections, as this increases fraud risk and removes choice from voters who wish to cast their vote in person.
We are seeking to put in place a strong set of new measures to ensure that the polls are Covid-secure. As for why campaigning is allowed when people still cannot see loved ones, this is highly regrettable but these are the circumstances that Covid requires. I look forward with passion to the day when I can see my granddaughter again. But campaigning is an essential part of democracy. Voters deserve to be well informed before going to the polls and there must be a level playing field for candidates. Careful guidance has been issued.
On the collection of nominations, the view is that people should follow social distancing rules, so no specific guidance has been given on that. All persons involved in the electoral process must ensure that public health is protected. The Government have issued appropriate guidance to that purpose and will continue to do so.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, as I said, the Welsh Language Advisory Group was content with the proposed changes and translations and no major changes were made as a result. We have worked closely with our partners, including the Welsh Government, to support the delivery of Covid-secure polls in May 2021. I repeat, it is for the Welsh Government to take decisions around polls within their competence. We will continue to work with them to ensure an aligned approach to the polls.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, raised a particular and important issue and I undertake to write to him with guidance on how the circumstances that he described would be addressed.
There has not been major dissent and I am grateful for your Lordships’ support for the instruments today. I think most agree that they make sensible changes to support the effective administration of elections, reducing the number of signatures that candidates will need to be nominated, which balances the need to demonstrate local support for those wishing to stand as a candidate. I hear what some noble Lords said about the number of signatures. As I set out in my opening remarks, the previous position will come back in May 2022. I always found it rather congenial going around to get nomination signatures, because they occasionally came with a cup of coffee or even a glass of wine. I am sure we will listen to your Lordships’ advice on this matter.
To conclude, I very much welcome what has been said about the Welsh language. This order carries on a long process of work that goes way back. I remember working as a young adviser with Viscount Whitelaw in the days when the battle over Welsh language broadcasting was live. The work is never completed, but we are ensuring here that there is effective Welsh language provision at elections in Wales and consistency with other elections held in Wales. In a world that treks towards a drab uniformity of approved culture and thought, we should always cherish the richness of ancient cultures and language, among which the great Welsh language is pre-eminent. In that spirit, I commend the instruments to the House.
Mayoral and Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Coronavirus, Nomination of Candidates) (Amendment) Order 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, the time limit for the following debate is one hour.
Northamptonshire (Structural Changes) (Supplementary Provision and Amendment) Order 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh
That the draft Order laid before the House on 25 January be approved.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, if approved and made, this order will make provision in relation to the two new unitary councils in Northamptonshire, which will be fully up and running from 1 April 20201, taking on all local government functions from that date. The order will ensure that there is a smooth transition from the predecessor to successor councils.
Following approval from Parliament, we legislated in February 2020 to abolish the existing Northamptonshire County Council and the seven district councils in the area and establish the new unitary councils of North Northamptonshire and West Northamptonshire. These local government changes were locally led, having been proposed by councils in Northamptonshire. We were satisfied that, if implemented, their proposal would be likely to improve local government and service delivery in the area; that they would have a good deal of local support; and that the new councils would have a credible geography.
I must pay tribute to all the local leaders and their officers who have worked so hard to implement both this restructuring in Northamptonshire and the successful launch of the new councils, all while responding to the Covid pandemic. I also offer my thanks to our commissioners there, who have done so much to stabilise the position of the existing county council and provide a stable base for the transition to the new authorities.
The order we are considering makes the following changes in relation to the new councils. First, it makes amendments to the Lieutenancies Act 1997 and the Sheriffs Act 1887 to insert in the relevant schedules references to the new local government areas of North Northamptonshire and West Northamptonshire in relation to the positions of Lord Lieutenant and High Sheriff respectively. This will ensure the continuation of these important roles, which represent the Crown in Northamptonshire. There is no change to the boundary of the ceremonial county of Northamptonshire, and there is no change to the functions or jurisdiction of the Lord Lieutenant or High Sheriff of Northamptonshire.
Secondly, the order makes provision to ensure that the property, rights, assets and liabilities of the Northamptonshire pension fund transfer from Northamptonshire County Council to West Northamptonshire Council, which will be the new administering authority of the pension fund. This will ensure the continuation of the administration of the pension fund and avoid the crystallisation of any pension liability.
It further provides that the responsibility for assets and liabilities in the pension fund relating to the pensions of employees or former employees of the councils that are to be abolished transfers to successor councils in proportions determined by West Northamptonshire Council. This will ensure that there is clarity on who is taking over the responsibility for funding existing pensions accrued and preventing exit payments arising. In coming to a fair determination on these matters, the order provides that West Northamptonshire Council must take advice from an actuary and consult North Northamptonshire Council.
The order before noble Lords addresses two supplementary and incidental issues that could not be addressed in the existing regulations on generic application, which enable effective implementation of all unitary authorities. These specific provisions need to be applied directly with respect to these particular authorities. I assure noble Lords that we have worked closely on this order with the existing councils and shadow authorities for North Northamptonshire and West Northamptonshire, looking carefully at a number of issues raised and agreeing that the provisions of the order meet local requirements.
In conclusion, these provisions are necessary consequential changes in the light of the establishment of the new councils that Parliament has approved. They ensure a smooth transition to the new arrangements and continued effective local government in the areas. I commend this order to the House.
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support the Minister and thank him so much for bringing this order forward. My first involvement in local government goes way back to 1968, when I had the privilege of leading the team that won Islington Borough Council, in effect winning every seat. Admittedly, Harold Wilson was rather unpopular at the time—another turnaround situation.
My first involvement with Northampton itself started 1972, when new boundaries had been agreed and Northampton South and Northampton North were looking for candidates. I put my name in and was told that Northampton South was a long shot, but I was not put off and, while I was on holiday in the south of France in the July, I got a telephone call asking if I would come back for an interview. Obviously, I did, and I was selected and flew back to what turned out to be a brilliant holiday.
The election was in February 1974. Mine was a marginal seat: my majority was 179. On the first count, it was minus 200-odd. On the second count, it was near enough level, and on the third count, I got 179—a good win. In October 1974, there was another election with a swing against my party, and I succeeded by 141; there was no personal swing against me, and the success was primarily due to tracking those who had moved from my best ward. As such, I say a huge public thank you again to the electors of Northampton South, who stuck with me through thick and thin until the disaster of 1997.
I turn to Northampton itself and the county. Northampton is a fourth-generation new town—it made a huge success of that, and I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that we should do something similar today, though maybe on a smaller scale. I am still involved today: as president of Northamptonshire County Cricket Club, the Steelbacks, and at the University of Northampton—which is doing so well—the Saints, the rugby team, and Silverstone racing track. That involvement is still there. I pay tribute to the leadership of those days: George Pollard, John Lowther, Bill Morton, Jack Corrin, Ann Addison, Anne Goodman and the aldermanic bench. There was good liaison in those days with the MPs; indeed, I remember marching along the Embankment in the early days, seeking proper funding for Northamptonshire in toto.
Turning to the specifics, there is little purpose going over what went wrong. Frankly, it is exceedingly embarrassing to see my county in such a difficult situation. To the outsider, it seems to have been a combination of poor leadership, not putting the council tax up to a realistic level, installing a corporate structure that was not suited and, I am afraid, the top councillors clearly not keeping their eye on the ball.
I must now, quite rightly, focus on the future. It is a wonderful, dynamic part of England—right in the middle, with wonderful connections. I wondered about the break-up of the unitaries, because I live in Bedfordshire, which has three—two big towns and the middle bit where I live—but having looked at the details of Northamptonshire, which has five significant towns and a middle bit straddling quite a long way, I think the proposal for west Northamptonshire and north Northamptonshire strikes the correct balance.
The split is there. It seems appropriate, although it is sad that the eight district councils have had to be wound up. That is pretty dramatic; I thank all the councillors on them who have given up so much time. After all the trials and tribulations, it was disappointing that we did not have some elections in 2020 to get going again, but now they are to go ahead in a few months’ time.
I have studied the order in some depth, as my noble friend on the Front Bench will understand. I see at paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum, as he has referred to, that there are amendments to the Lieutenancies Act 1997 and the Sheriffs Act 1887. I thank my noble friend for ensuring that, in other words, there is to be no change to the boundary of the ceremonial county of Northamptonshire or to the functions of the Lord-Lieutenant or the High Sheriff of Northamptonshire. I admire both present incumbents and many other previous ones.
I looked at the pension fund in some depth—I declare an interest as a trustee of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund—and seek reassurance that this will be closely and properly audited before it is formally handed over. I am sure there is nothing wrong there; nevertheless, given that the county council’s financial situation got into such a mess, I and, I am sure, the people of Northamptonshire wish to be reassured that what is being handed over is in proper order and that the pension fund is solvent to deal with and look after our pensions.
I formally pay my thanks to the senior inspector, Max Caller CBE, for the careful work he did on analysing the situation, recognising that there was no way of carrying on as a county council and that we had to move forward.
I will now look at the future in a little more depth. It is a proud county, and there will still be many organisations county-wide. I have mentioned Northamptonshire County Cricket Club, in which I declare an interest as president, a really well-run club that is succeeding well. Equally well run are the Saints; both have good structures, with strong chairmen and active boards. We have a university that came out of a further education college and a teacher training college, today ranking close to the top of the second division of universities. I pay great tribute to the vice-chancellor and his team for what they have done there. There will also be other county things such as the arts world and music, so we can all hold our heads up proudly that the geographical dimension of Northamptonshire is still very much there.
I cannot resist a brief word about the Battle of Naseby, on 14 June 1645, where Fairfax and Cromwell defeated the King and, in effect, led our country to meaningful parliamentary government—hence why I took the name, with the blessing, I emphasise, of Naseby Parish Council. I am still deeply involved in many parts of the county. Mentioning the battle again, there is a wonderful trail with viewing platforms for those who are interested.
Every unitary council today, after Covid, faces a huge challenge, none more so than the two newer ones. Northamptonshire people and businesses have dynamism and respected companies, with names that are well-known worldwide: Church’s shoes, British Timken, Barclaycard, Silverstone itself—with wonderful companies such as Cosworth and all the others—to mention a few.
But there is an immediate challenge for the two new councils: the new wave of cash grants for hospitality and high street firms. Those councils will be in charge of the distribution and I know that others elsewhere have not been too good at that. I look to the two new unitary authorities to be in the vanguard, so that when the distribution has been done, my noble friend the Minister will be able to stand up and say, “They’ve done a good job.” I look to the two new Northamptonshire unitaries to be in that vanguard and I say to them publicly that I am available to help in any way possible, as I imagine all the Members of Parliament for the county are too.
Lord Liddle (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, with his charming recollections of Northamptonshire and his evident commitment to the area that he represented for 24 years in Parliament and has continued to care about since he joined this House. That was a most impressive speech.
My interest in this subject, which I declare, is as a member of Cumbria County Council. I shall not comment on specific Northamptonshire issues, but I would like to engage the Government, if they are willing, in a debate about the general principles of their approach to local government reorganisation.
This May it will be half a century since I was first elected as a local councillor, in the then Oxford County Borough, which became Oxford District Council. For four years I was a member of Lambeth Council in the 1980s, where I led the SDP opposition to Ted Knight—someone who was as far away from the founding principles of the Labour Party as could possibly be imagined. For the last eight years I have been a Labour councillor in Cumbria.
My earliest political experience was living through local government reorganisation, when the county borough in Oxford became a district. Now I am living through it again, because on 22 February the Government formally announced that they were consulting on proposals to reorganise local government in Cumbria. I know that the Minister will not be able to comment on that in detail, but I would like to make some general points, which I hope he may be able to respond to in a letter.
I am a strong supporter of the unitary model. As I said, I was first elected to a county borough, but the problem with a county borough is that it did not reach beyond its hinterland. I believe that unitaries are the best model. The public do not understand two-tier local government: they talk about “the council” and do not know which council they are talking to. Two tiers also create artificial barriers to efficiency. It is nonsense to have local planning and housing issues decided at one level and highways and traffic at another. It is nonsense to separate housing from social services, where a lot of the preventive efforts relate to the housing service.
In the Covid emergency we have seen a split between public health, which is a county responsibility, and environmental health, which is a district responsibility. None of that makes sense and it involves a lot of duplication. In Cumbria we have far too many councillors —possibly including me. We have 350 of them. When we know—as we do from the Budget yesterday—that there will be no cornucopia of provision for local government in the next few years, it is important to make efficiency savings where we can.
People on the other side of the argument say that big unitary authorities mean a lack of democratic accountability. The answer to that, in my view, is to strengthen town and parish councils at the very local level. In the town I represent, Wigton, there is a very active town council and I would like to see its role extended. That would give very local accountability for very local decisions.
Moving to unitary authorities has my general support. The Government have so far adopted a mixed approach. In some places, such as Cornwall and Buckinghamshire, they have created a single unitary for the county. Why did they not adopt that approach in Northamptonshire? This clearly cannot be simply a question of geography and population size, because Cornwall and Buckinghamshire are very big areas.
There is also an issue about whether government policy and plans for local government reorganisation allow county boundaries to be crossed. Has that happened so far? In Cumbria there is now a proposal to create a Morecambe Bay authority—but the only snag with that is that it would deprive Lancashire County Council of its county town. What is the Government’s view in principle of proposals that cross county boundaries? For instance, in the case of Northampton, was the idea of creating an urban-based authority consisting of Northampton, Bedford and Milton Keynes ever considered? That would be logical if we were prepared to cross old county boundaries. What is the Government’s attitude to that?
In Northamptonshire the reorganisation has clearly involved breaking up services that were provided on a county basis. We know that that has been avoided for the lord lieutenancy and the pension scheme, but what has been the experience with children’s services? Has the trust model worked? Do the Government think that a children’s services trust can be held accountable when things go wrong? What are the lessons that they have drawn?
What reorganisation should definitely not be based on is political pressure from Members of Parliament who basically just want to hang on to existing structures. A lot of that is because they see district councillors as their grass-roots organisation. I do not think that should be regarded as a principle to prevent sensible reorganisation.
What criteria will the Government use in looking at all these different proposals for reorganisation? In Cumbria we have four proposals—one for a single unitary, which I support, and three different versions with two unitaries. That is a confusing situation and some order must be given to its consideration.
These are difficult questions and I am not expecting a clear answer from the Minister. I apologise for taking up the time of the House on these issues, but the Government have been rather slow and rather reluctant to show a bit of leg—if I might put it that way—in the reasoning behind local government reorganisation, which in principle I support. I believe in local government, as I know the Minister does. I have a passion for it, and I want to see a reorganisation carried out on a sensible basis, which can last for generations.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I am happy to support the order before the House. As we have heard, it makes a number of changes and provides for the smooth transition to the new unitary councils that are to replace the old two-tier system in Northamptonshire. It also confirms that, for ceremonial purposes, the county of Northamptonshire remains in place; it is just the governance arrangements that will be different.
I thank all the councillors from all parties and no party, and all the staff, from all the local authorities, who have worked hard for the benefit of residents in Northamptonshire. I join the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, in his tribute. In particular, I pay tribute to, and thank, Councillor Tom Beattie for his leadership of Corby Borough Council over many years.
I lived and worked in the East Midlands for a long time. It is a wonderful place. Northamptonshire is a wonderful county, which the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, served with distinction for many years as one of its MPs. I agree with the noble Lord about what a wonderful, dynamic place Northamptonshire is. There is beautiful countryside, great businesses, such as Dr Martens in Wellingborough, Weetabix in Burton Latimer and Carlsberg in Northampton, world-class rugby with Northampton Saints, motor racing at Silverstone and Corby’s steel heritage and connections with Scotland. One of my dear friends was Mr Bob Wood, a leading figure in the Corby and East Northamptonshire Labour Party. Bob often told me of travelling down from Aberdeen with his family to get a job in the steel works. He remained at the steel works until they closed in 1979. That historic connection between Scotland and Corby is still there today. I remember taking Donald Dewar to Corby many times. He would have a lovely time there because he met people and families he knew from Glasgow because they had moved down to Corby.
At the risk of being accused of being party-political again, I think it is worth putting on record that this reorganisation has come about not through the coming together of local authorities, nor through the realisation by local authorities that unitarisation is the best way forward—though I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, that it is—but through the financial mismanagement and near collapse of Northamptonshire County Council. We discussed those matters before the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, was a Minister and before he was in the House. I have great respect for the noble Lord, but I think I need to run through some of those episodes.
Here is one illustration of the shambles we have had in Northamptonshire. On 12 October 2017, the £53 million, bright, shiny, brand new county HQ, One Angel Square, was opened by the right honourable Member for Bromsgrove, Mr Sajid Javid, who was the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. The Secretary of State told the assembled guests that it was a wonderful building, the headquarters of a bright, modern, forward-facing county council. The video of that opening is still online; I watched it again last night, and the Secretary of State praises the council and the work it does. I must say that I always liked the old county council building; I do not think there was anything wrong with that at all.
Jump forward six months to 27 March 2018, and Mr Sajid Javid stands up in the House of Commons and announces that he is minded to send in commissioners to run the county council, following the publication of Northampton County Council Best Value Inspection which said that the council had
“failed to comply with its duty … to provide best value in the delivery of its services”
and should be scrapped, and that commissioners should take control of the authority’s finances and governance from day one. On 10 May 2018, the new the Secretary of State, Mr James Brokenshire, announces they have decided to send in commissioners to run the county council.
It is not good. It is financial mismanagement at its worst. It is letting down those you are elected to serve. It is letting down those least able to defend themselves. It is not good enough. Taken with the serious failures of governance at Northampton Borough Council, resulting in the loss of £10 million of taxpayers’ money in the Northampton Town loan scandal, it is a complete and utter disgrace. Now, to be clear, where Labour councils or councillors have failed to uphold high standards, I expect action to be taken by my party. I believe nobody should stand for election to North Northamptonshire Council or West Northamptonshire Council if they have played a leading role in any of these scandals. The Government should think about that carefully because we have let residents and the council taxpayers down.
It was important to put that on the record. Having said that, I support the order. I wish the new councils and councillors well, but there have been serious problems they have to deal with. Something has gone seriously wrong in this county over many years.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we have had an interesting and brief debate this afternoon. I am grateful for the insightful and helpful contributions noble Lords have made. I would like to provide some further detail on some of the points that have been raised.
My noble friend Lord Naseby was clear about his considerable local government pedigree and distinguished parliamentary career representing Northampton South. He clearly has that close bond with the historic county of Northamptonshire, and I recognise his support for the proposed split into two unitaries. I give my noble friend assurance that there is an annual audit of the pension fund and that there has been a clear apportionment of the pension assets and liabilities to ensure it happens fairly and that the pension fund can continue to operate unaffected.
The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, was very passionate about the advantages of unitarisation, and I would point out that the devolution proposals are locally-led. The split followed the recommendation of an independent review of Northamptonshire County Council by Max Caller. It was supported by local leaders, and a significant consultation exercise was carried out. I can also assure the noble Lord that the Secretary of State will clearly evaluate the criteria for unitarisation and the results of the consultation against those criteria before making any decision. He will have regard for all the information that has been provided to him.
I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, that it is important that we root out those few councils that let people down. It is the residents of the area that suffer. I am sure he would agree there are examples of Labour councils that have run up huge levels of debt. The most obvious is Croydon Council, which ran up a debt of £1.5 billion and did not have the reserves to be able to continue financing even basic services. So we need to make sure there is a framework in place and that local leaders who have taken those poor decisions do not have a future in the leadership of local government. I agree with him on that.
In conclusion, this order makes a significant contribution to support and empower local government to deliver public services to the people of Northamptonshire in an efficient and effective way. This order completes the legislative requirements necessary to implement a locally-led proposal for unitarisation in Northamptonshire. It ensures that necessary technical arrangements around ceremonial matters and local government pension scheme arrangements are in place so that there continues to be effective local government in Northamptonshire.
The new local authorities undergoing reorganisation are making excellent progress towards their go-live date, and I am confident the new councils, West Northamptonshire Council and North Northamptonshire Council, will be successfully launched on 1 April 2021, bringing about the improved local government and service delivery that the people of Northamptonshire need and deserve. I commend this order to the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We are just going to swap the speakers, and we are waiting for the Minister, so, rather than adjourn the House, we are going to take one minute, then move straight on.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I think it would be sensible if we adjourned for two minutes.
Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill
Thursday 4th March 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Act 2021 View all Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 174-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons amendments in lieu and reason - (2 Mar 2021)
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, I will call Members to speak in the order listed. As there are no counterpropositions, Members not listed may not speak and the Minister’s Motions may not be opposed. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are discouraged. A Member listed to speak and wishing to ask such a question must email the clerk.
Motion A
Baroness Barran
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 1A and 1B in lieu.
“1A In section 134 (restrictions in leases and licences), in subsection (8), for the definition of “lease” substitute—
““lease”—
(a) in relation to England and Wales and Northern Ireland, includes—
(i) any head lease, sub-lease or underlease,
(ii) any tenancy (including a sub-tenancy), and
(iii) any agreement to grant any such lease or tenancy;
(b) in relation to Scotland, includes any sub-lease and any agreement to grant a sub-lease,
And “lessor” and “lessee” are to be construed accordingly;”.”
(a) for the definition of “lease” substitute—
““lease”—
(a) in relation to England and Wales and Northern Ireland, includes—
(i) any head lease, sub-lease or underlease,
(ii) any tenancy (including a sub- tenancy), and
(iii) any agreement to grant any such lease or tenancy,
but does not include a mortgage by demise or sub-demise;
(b) in relation to Scotland, includes any sub- lease and any agreement to grant a sub- lease,
and “leased premises” and “lessee” are to be read accordingly;”;
(b) before the definition of “relevant person” insert—”
Baroness Barran
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 3A.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, I am moving Motions A and B en bloc. When the Bill was introduced in early 2020, we could not have predicted the situation that we find ourselves in now. Over the past year, our telecoms network has allowed businesses to continue to operate, children to continue to learn and those in isolation to continue to see and speak to families and friends. As the Minister for Digital Infrastructure has done in the other place, I give wholehearted thanks to the UK’s digital infrastructure providers, internet service providers and mobile network operators. They have stepped up and worked with us to bridge the gaps in provision, be that through whitelisting educational websites, providing free data and devices to struggling families or coming together to deliver connectivity to the Nightingale hospitals and vaccination sites. As with any industry, there is a tendency to pay attention only when something goes wrong and to ignore the huge amount of effort and hard work it takes to keep things working normally. The industry’s efforts during this extraordinary time cannot and must not be forgotten.
However, the coronavirus pandemic has put into sharp relief the divide between the digital haves and the digital have-nots. This Government’s ambition is to support the delivery of fast, reliable, resilient broadband to every home and business in this country. Noble Lords will be aware—not least from our discussions during the passage of the Bill—of the myriad, complex barriers that face infrastructure deployment. There is no panacea, but the Bill provides a modest yet vital development. Despite having once been described by the Guardian as “an obscure technical bill”, it has within its initial scope some 10 million people in the UK who live in flats and apartments. It also contains the flexibility to bring still more people into its scope in the future, such as those in office blocks and business parks, where the evidence points to it.
We expect these provisions, once commenced, to make a real difference to rollout, along with other measures we are taking forward such as mandating gigabit connectivity to new-build developments and reforms to the street-works regime so that it better supports deployment.
I trust that your Lordships will have seen that a consultation on further potential changes to the Electronic Communications Code has now been published. We will carefully consider whether further legislative changes beyond those made in the Digital Economy Act 2017 are necessary as a result of what we learn from that consultation. These are all steps that, combined, will help operators achieve their, and this Government’s, ambitious connectivity targets. Crucially, these measures will take into account the interests of those needing greater connectivity, balancing those interests alongside those of landowners. Just as with the Bill, that balance is crucial to ensure that we continue to bridge that digital divide.
The Motion asks that this House does not insist on its Amendment 1 and does agree with the Commons in its Amendments 1A and 1B in lieu. As noble Lords will recall, Amendment 1 was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, following similar amendments by the Opposition Front Bench, here and in the other place. Its purpose is to clarify that people who rent their flat can make use of the policy in the Bill. While we maintain that the Bill has always provided for that, the strength of feeling on the matter is undeniable. To make it clear that the Bill serves the interests of tenants as well as leaseholders, the Government have tabled two amendments in the spirit of that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. The amendments clarify the definition of “lease” in the Electronic Communications Code, to ensure that it includes, for example, any tenancy. I hope that your Lordships will support these amendments.
I hope that the House will not insist on Lords Amendment 3, to which the Commons has disagreed for Reason 3A. That amendment, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, adds a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to commission a review of the impact of the Bill on the Electronic Communications Code. The proposed new clause requires the commissioned review to include an assessment of whether the code is sufficient to support the delivery of one gigabit per second broadband to every premise in the country by 2025. The amendment also requires that further, separate assessments be made of whether the code should be amended to
“introduce rights of access to telecommunications operators akin to those available to suppliers of electricity, gas, and water”.
The amendment also provides for an assessment as to whether the code should be amended to provide additional development rights and encourage collaboration alongside other works being carried out in the locality.
I recognise and appreciate the intention with which this amendment was tabled. It is important that the Government are held to account over their rollout targets, and it is frustrating that many parts of the country still do not have access to the digital services they need. However, we continue to believe that the amendment is unnecessary and seeks to introduce provisions which fall outside the purpose of the Bill and, indeed, the code itself. As I have said, there are already mechanisms in place by which the department’s rollout targets are measured and scrutinised.
Ofcom, the independent regulator, publishes its annual Connected Nations report, which it updates a further two times a year. This provides a clear assessment of the progress that this country is making in providing connectivity, both fixed and mobile. These reports provide detailed analysis of the connectivity available in the UK as a whole, in each of the nations and in urban and rural areas. They show the progress that is being made in the deployment of gigabit-capable networks and 4G and 5G coverage. They show progress in relation to connections to superfast services, as well as the areas in this country which are not yet served—for example, those premises unable to access a broadband speed that meets the minimum under the universal service obligation. Should the Ofcom reports raise questions, the Government continue to provide answers and clarity on any aspects of their work in this area, both in this House and in the other place.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her thorough review of both the amendments, and of the scene.
The Bill seems to have been around almost as long as the Covid pandemic. I am almost minded to call it the “lockdown Bill”, because it surfaced from time to time and then disappeared from time to time. Looking forward, I hope that future Bills which may or may not emerge from consultations will perhaps have a rather more impelling momentum than this one, which seems to have been rather caught in the backwash of legislation.
It has been a Bill of essentially two debates. One was the huge concern that your Lordships demonstrated about the nature of the digital communications supply chain; the Minister may be pleased to know that I will not go back into that. The other debate—the Minister may not agree—has exposed the paucity of ambition in the Bill and, therefore, by extension, in Her Majesty’s Government. On the Minister’s own admission, it is a narrow Bill; I would say it is just about as narrow as the Government’s USO, which I remind your Lordships is just 10 megabits a second. Both the Government and the industry should be seeking to increase that.
When it comes to the digital communications supply chain, there is one thing that I should like to talk about. Much work is to be done in the sector as it comes to terms with the future absence of Huawei. Since we last considered the Bill, some of us have received letters from the Minister setting out plans for supply chain diversity. I hope that that letter is in the Library; if not, it would be appreciated if the Minister made sure that it was. Government support for the NEC open RAN trial is good and we welcome that. I remind the Minister that the Government’s stated aim is to have 5G open RAN up and running this year. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister were able in her closing words to let us know whether that is on track. I should point out in referring to the technical consultation being due in the spring that the first day of spring was Monday, so we are, as it were, already sprung.
I turn to the items on the Marshalled List. When addressing the amendment on leasehold status in the Commons, the Minister of State Matt Warman MP recognised the plight of people living in flats and apartments, which was welcome. He and the Minister enumerated about 10 million people as potentially benefiting from being able to seek better broadband in their homes. That point was thoroughly made by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. The purpose of his amendment on Report was to clarify, as the Minister said, that people who rent their flat can make use of the changes in the Bill. It is gratifying that the Government have retained the spirit of that Amendment 1 in offering Amendments 1A and 1B instead. I am sure that my noble friend will have more to say on that.
Turning to Lords Amendment 3, the Government’s response is not supportive and that is disappointing. That amendment would have added a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to commission a review of the impact of the Bill on the Electronic Communications Code. It seems to me that in her rebuttal of that amendment the Minister enumerated the considerable weaknesses of the code and set out some areas of concern. Amendment 3 would have included an assessment of whether the code was sufficient to support 1 gigabit broadband rollout in every premises by 2025. In her rebuttal, she said that the code was not competent to do that. Given that so much weight has been put, not least by the Government, on that target, that would seem to be a serious issue. As the Minister set out, it would have required separate assessments to be made, as well as addressing the issue around utilities—that was well rehearsed on Report and I do not propose to do so again.
However, I am tempted to ask what the Government are scared of in terms of allowing that review to happen. They seem to be nervous about their ability to deliver on that 1 gigabit target. It was therefore not surprising that Matt Warman MP would politely denounce that amendment, as the Minister has done today. Both focused on the assertion that elements of the amendment fall outside the scope of the Bill. It is not beyond understanding that if that were the case the Government could have come back with an amendment that retained or created a review but also satisfied the need for the amendment to sit inside the Bill. Once again, we have fallen foul of the narrowness of the Bill.
It is partly surprising and perhaps gratifying that the Government have realised how narrow the Bill is, and it was almost remarkable that before the ink was dry on it, the next consultation came fluttering through the letterbox. Perhaps the Minister has, in a sense, already confirmed the recognition that the Bill was insufficient in the first place. It has taken us a long time for us to get not very far and now we have to start again.
On many occasions, the Minister has reminded us that the code is technology-neutral. I think we know and understand that. Therefore, the review has to grasp that within the context of how the code in future deals with the key issue: are people getting the connectivity they need, can we measure it, and can we make it quicker and better as well as cheaper? I hope that that goes beyond simply talking about access to land and that kind of issue. Let us get through this consultation as quickly and thoroughly as we can. Let us get another Bill so that we can create a code that does what it needs to do and is fit for purpose because, let us face it, the Government have an interest in delivering the gigabit target from their manifesto but the country has much higher stakes in this. We need it as soon as possible.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I join the Minister in congratulating our telecoms providers on rising to the challenge of providing relatively comprehensive connectivity to the nation in response to Covid.
However, I am reluctant to speak to Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, other than to say that I do not support it, for the reason that it appears to place additional burdens and apportion impractical and potentially onerous rights. It would be injected into the Bill in its closing stages when we do not have the capacity as a House either to examine the issues or to reflect on the Electronic Telecommunications Code and the impact of the new rights being given to operators. My approach is that it is best not to introduce additional complexities to Bills during ping-pong.
However, I intervened on the Bill as far back as 19 May 2020 with my amendment to prevent vendors defined by the National Cyber Security Centre as high-risk. From the outset, I welcomed the aims of the Bill. My intentions were narrow and were to protect our critical infrastructure and, by definition, since that is built for the longer term—20, 30 or perhaps 40 years —to protect it from being compromised by firms that today might seem benign but in the long term may be able to jeopardise our security as technology becomes more complex.
My amendment was described as being anti-Huawei, although its wording was much broader. I owe a huge debt of gratitude to other noble Lords who joined me in that endeavour because I was constantly being told by the Government Benches that the amendment was inappropriate. However, the noble Lords, Lord Alton of Liverpool, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, and Lord Adonis, stuck with me as we continued to argue that Huawei or, indeed, any other future telecoms provider that might jeopardise our national security should be removed from being able to operate with impunity in this country.
I truly regret that the Bill was delayed in our seeking those safeguards, but that is what we exist for here as a scrutinising Chamber. We give the Government an opportunity to think again and that is what has happened through those amendments. We currently have before us in the Telecommunications (Security) Bill the right place to discuss those matters as we go forward, and the Government have also seen the light of day on the use of Huawei.
I therefore thank the Minister for her openness throughout the year in having given us valuable time and discussing where we might go with our amendment. I thank all noble Lords who participated in the Bill for having put up with us and a slightly otiose amendment. Nevertheless, we got there in the end.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comprehensive introduction. I agree with her emphasis on the importance of internet services and the need to eliminate digital exclusion. It is hard to think what the consequences would have been if we had suffered this pandemic just 10 years ago, when our broadband services were less extensive and much slower than now.
In the name of inclusivity, I welcome the first part of today’s business, Motion A. Throughout the course of the Bill, my noble friend Lord Fox, the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Lord Liddle, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and others have been arguing for as inclusive a definition as possible of those who could be regarded as tenants, without straying into the territory of licensees or licences. It includes those with assured shorthold tenancies or assured tenancy agreements, as well as students living in short-term lets, where a tenant has, or tenants have, exclusive possession of the let property.
We have been concerned throughout to ensure that all tenancies such as renewable tenancies are included, even if they are not, strictly speaking, leases and that there should not be any grey areas that need to be interpreted by the courts. I am pleased that the Government have now produced an even more inclusive definition than the one that I argued for on Report. My sincere thanks go to the Minister and the Bill team for their care and consideration on what we have always regarded as an important issue.
However, I do not welcome Motion B. The original purpose of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, which was strongly supported on these Benches—I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, that it was introduced not at ping-pong but on Report—was to ensure that the code is fit for the purpose of delivering the Government’s manifesto commitment of broadband capable of 1 gigabit per second to every home by 2025. The need for this has become even more important, particularly since the Covid-19 lockdown has demonstrated our increasing dependence on good broadband connectivity for remote working, education and many other aspects of life, as the Minister mentioned.
Sadly, it is clear that the Government are backtracking in their ambitions—the 2025 1 gigabit per second target has been watered down and the budget for rollout expenditure slashed by two-thirds. Even so, it is clear that the Electronic Communications Code needs regular review to ensure that the Government’s objective, however watered down, is met and that operators have all the rights under the code that they need.
My noble friend Lord Fox rightly commented on a universal service obligation of a miserable 10 megabits per second and I completely agree with him. However, looking to the future, I am glad that during the course of the Bill we have started a genuine debate around whether we can describe broadband as a utility and what the appropriate rights of entry are.
I am also grateful to the noble Baroness for answering what the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, described as a blizzard of questions on telecoms supply chain diversification in her extremely informative letter last month. Some of the work being carried out on open RAN, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Fox, is ground- breaking for the interoperability and competitiveness of our 5G networks. It is good to see that international collaboration is regarded as essential and is ongoing.
However, at the end of the day I am left with a sense of bafflement. This has been a ridiculously modest Bill, given the challenges of the broadband and 5G rollout ahead. Of course, as the Minister has mentioned, we now have Access to Land: Consultation on Changes to the Electronic Communications Code, which was issued in January. Notwithstanding this Bill, it seems clear the Government think that further changes are needed to clarify the position on rights to upgrade and share. Why not an earlier consultation? Why were these issues not considered before this piece of legislation? Are these long-standing questions or are they thoughts that have arisen during the course of the Bill? Is there another Bill on the way? We know from the representations made that the operators are calling for other changes that are not included in the Bill or the consultation.
I have another quote from Matt Warman. In his introduction to the consultation he says:
“The government is committed to ensuring that the Code is fit for purpose in order to deliver our digital connectivity targets.”
That is excellent. A review of the kind envisaged in our amendment would have been perfect for that purpose. The Bill has taken an inordinate time to get through, but it is clear that more reforms are in the pipeline. The question remains: could we have been spending our time better and enacting a more comprehensive Bill with a wider range of revisions, instead of this piecemeal approach?
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, like others, I start by joining the Minister in thanking all our digital providers for the work that they have been doing during the pandemic, which, of course, will continue for some time to come. I hope that it will provide the basis for a learning experience about what it means to live in the digital economy that we all share hopes for.
As the Minister said when she introduced the Motions, this Bill is a modest one. However, when she says that it affects some 10 million people, that means that it has important implications. We never objected to the ideas behind the Bill and, indeed, wanted to help as much as we could to make sure that it became law as quickly as possible and allowed access to the digital economy that is so necessary in the modern world to people who otherwise would not have had it because of problems with their freeholder. We must accept that broadband is a utility.
I welcome the Government’s amendment. I think that the right word has been used, in that it “improves” the amendment originally moved by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on Report, which we also supported, to try to make sense of the definitions in terms of who was to be affected, whether it was leaseholders, renters or whatever. The language is much better as a result and that is good.
Unfortunately, the removal of the amendment just discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, seems to have a bit of a downside. I talked with the Minister before we got to this stage in proceedings and made it clear that we would not insist on our amendment being retained within the Bill. I think that we did that more in sadness than in a spirit of support, because it relates to important issues that have been raised in today’s debate.
The Minister was kind enough to praise our aspirations for the Bill, but she was also rather devastating in demolishing all the points that I thought that we had broadly agreed were important. She pointed out how inept our drafting was and how problematic it would have been had the amendment stayed within the Bill. Such are the joys of opposition. We are never going to achieve the skills of the draftsmen available to the Government. I wish that sometimes more credit would be given to the ideas that we have put forward, rather than worrying about their expression.
At the end of the day, I suppose that the consultation on the Electronic Communications Code announced by the Government in January does the trick on some of the issues underlying our amendment. However, as the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Fox, said, it also exposes that fact that a large number of wider issues, often led by other departments in government, still have not been resolved. I urge the Government to push forward on the permitted development issues and on the street works, including the need for the antennae and cabinets that will be required if the 5G support for the 1 gigabit-enabled economy is ever to see the light of day.
I could delay the House with a further discussion of the need for much more ambitious targets, a better USO and more investment, but these have been covered and this Bill is not really the right place for them. I leave my comments with a question for the Minister: does she have in her mind a route map for how we are to achieve the 1 gigabit per second-enabled infrastructure? I am confident that, since this issue will not go away, we will be resuming discussion of it in the not-too-distant future.
Finally, I share the Minister’s concern that the telecoms operators, which we have praised already for the work that they have done during this pandemic, should continue to get the best tools and the best access so that they can continue to innovate and provide superfast quality broadband to as many people as possible. Unfortunately, I harbour a niggling concern, rather like the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Clement-Jones, that one problem that will get in the way of this delivery is the scope and scale of the current Electronic Communications Code. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement- Jones, said, is not the real question how we are to get beyond that to think again about how a utility as important as the internet can be allowed to be installed without the current plethora of planning and other restrictions, and control of the streetscape and the environment in which it has to be inserted, being in the hands of other departments? It seems to suggest that more work is required, but that is for another day.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their helpful contributions to the debate and I will respond to some of the questions that have been raised. I start by sharing the aspiration of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that future Bills should move more smoothly. I shall try not to take too much personal responsibility for the pace of this Bill, but I know he will accept that the breadth of Bills can slow them down. There is a tension between wishing that there could have been more in this legislation and the speed of its progress.
Along with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, raised questions about our diversification strategy and its progress, particularly in relation to open RAN. I want to reassure all noble Lords that we have made early progress in our work to accelerate the development of open interface solutions by committing to work with NEC to launch the NeutrORAN test bed as part of the wider 5G test beds and trials programme that will showcase 5G open RAN technology. As noble Lords are aware, our strategy in this area is backed by an initial investment of £250 million to kick off this work. We are trying to take a balanced approach to this diversification, which will see measures introduced across three separate strands of activity; that is, by supporting incumbent suppliers such as Ericsson and Nokia, as well as attracting new suppliers into the UK market and, as I said, accelerating open interface solutions and deployment.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked why we are nervous about a review. I do not think we are nervous and I hope I have made it clear that we do not think that that kind of review is necessary given the level of scrutiny already given by Ofcom and Select Committees across both Houses.
The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, asked about the vital issue of network security. As she will know, the Telecommunications (Security) Bill being debated in the other place introduces a stronger security framework for all UK public telecom providers. It will ensure that providers design and manage their networks in a secure way. In response to her point about future-proofing the legislation, the Bill will introduce a new national security power to manage the risks posed by high-risk vendors in our telecom networks both now and into the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about the universal service obligation. We will keep the speed and quality parameters of the USO under review to make sure that it keeps pace with consumers’ evolving needs.
I must offer an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, if I was critical of any of his drafting skills, which will certainly be vastly superior to anything I could manage. I am genuine in saying that the Government are very grateful to him for raising important issues, including how we should tackle the matters that cut across different government departments and their different legislative responsibilities, which are so crucial.
The noble Lord also challenged the Government’s ambition in this area. As he will know, by 2025, the Government are targeting a minimum of 85% of gigabit-capable coverage, but we will seek to accelerate rollout further to get as close to 100% as possible. That target is based on extensive engagement with the industry over the past year as well as the current industry rates of deployment and how those may be increased. We have also made a major investment of £5 billion in the UK gigabit programme, which has galvanised commercial build in the market.
In closing, I was reminded while listening to noble Lords of my low point on this Bill. It was when my own internet connection failed while we were all working remotely. I think it happened during the Committee stage and I was unable to use my video camera, so I have had a personal interest in this. I close by thanking again the Bill team, who have been enormously knowledgeable, professional and helpful in supporting me and, I know, a number of noble Lords through the passage of the Bill. I thank all noble Lords for their scrutiny, their challenge and the quality of the debate and I commend the Motions to the House.